Talk:Narciso Yepes

Critics

I do believe that it is good to include Angelo Gilardino's comment about Yepes, since Gilardino is guitarist, composer and scholar:

• "Respectfully, I cannot place Yepes on the same level with Segovia and Bream." (Angelo Gilardino, Guitar Review, Issue 115/Winter 1999)

He means no disrespect towards Yepes; and I think I'm not alone in valuing Gilardino's opinions. DearJonas (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet other critics disagree with Gilardino:

• "Other fine guitarists have visited Japan, but none of them, not even Segovia, revealed such delicacy and beauty in the instrument." (SANKEI SHINBUN, Tokyo)

• "...We consider Yepes the most complete guitarist of our times." (EL MERCURIO, Santiago de Chile)

"A recognised authority in the art music world (not just the guitar world), critic and author of seminal works on 20th century art music, Paul Griffiths had this to say:

"Narciso Yepes gave a most delicate account of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez. The range of timbres he can produce, to contrast phrases and to shape them, is astonishing . . . The work is not worthy of such playing." (Paul Griffiths [acclaimed author on new music, writer, librettist, critic] 1974, THE TIMES, London, 6 Nov., p.11)

If you understand the statement in the correct spirit, he also means no disrespect towards Rodrigo.

In any case, one wonders, what was Gilardino thinking? Honestly, I respect Gilardino's "Studi" for guitar, but in saying the above, what was he thinking? This is equivalent to proclaiming that Joan Miró is not on the same level as Pablo Picasso, or that J.M. Coetzee is not on the same level as William Faulkner. What 'level'? And by what criterium are we judging? And who imposed it? Critics? Musicians? Guitarists? Professional guitarists? Guitar teachers? Guitar afficionados? Audiences? The guy off the street? ...all have different criteria.

Since Gilardino does not state his criteria, let us suggest some. Bream and Segovia: popularized the guitar, inspired significant (non-guitarist) composers to write for the instrument, (in the case of Bream) revived period instruments, revived old repertoire and supported the new (well, the last is not entirely true for Segovia, whose tastes did not follow the times), concertised around the world, and lifted the technical standards of the guitar.

Then, let us consider that Narciso Yepes also brought about wider recognition of the classical guitar through his association with leading French filmmakers of his time: Who does not know the theme from "Jeux interdits"? And I wonder to whom Gilardino attributes the popularity of the "Concierto de Aranjuez", if not to Yepes who was the only guitarist performing it regularly and widely, all over the world, in its early life. Let us consider that, like Segovia and Bream, Yepes inspired the admiration of significant composers. Did the great Bruno Maderna, Maurice Ohana, and Leonardo Balada (and many others) not write substantial works for the guitar specifically because of Yepes? Let us consider that Yepes too revived period instruments and was the first to record the complete lute works of J.S. Bach, not only on guitar, but also on a replica of a period 14-course lute, before these practices (complete oeuvre recordings, period instruments) even became de rigeur. Let us consider all the old music that Yepes studied (we are talking here, in figures from the early 1980s) about circa "600 books of tablature, many unknown" including "30 concertos" of music from the 15-17th centuries. Let us consider that, aside from research on old music, Yepes was a strong supporter of new music (which, with respect, cannot be said of Segovia, whose tastes were entirely behind the times). Let us consider that, before his illness, Yepes gave in average over a hundred concerts each year, on every inhabited continent, and more than any other concert guitarist at the time, the emphasis was on works for guitar and orchestra, which took the instrument out of its (to coin a term) mise-en-abysmal state [of guitarists listening to guitarists listening to guitarists...] and into the wider world of art music. Finally let us consider that Yepes invented technical resources that were previously unsuspected, the number and detail of which is too much to go into here. Then there was the matter of inventing his guitar, which was a stroke of genius that had the potential to become the standard of the concert stage, if only it had not been totally misunderstood by both its detractors and (even worse) many of its 'devotees'.

So what Gilardino was actually thinking when he made the above statement, who knows? But this playing up against each other of figures that are ALL artists of the first rank (for different reasons) is a pettiness that, outside the world of the guitar, I have rarely observed among respected music, art or literary critics. Narciso Yepes did not lower himself to this sort of activity, as can be witnessed in his regard of Segovia (which can be viewed on youtube), and it should be noted, Yepes even respectfully removed the reference to Segovia in the SANKEI SHINBUN press quote (given above), at least in later publicity materials. [I refer to a series of recitals from 1984, whose concert programmes give the press quote as: "Other fine guitarists have visited Japan, but none of them revealed such delicacy and beauty in the instrument." (SANKEI SHINBUN, Tokyo)]

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK maby the quote by Gilardino is not really good, since it's rather brief anyway. But quotes from the New York Times (including a weblink to the original reviews/articles) are worthy of mention and have thus been included:

• "The suite by Falckenhagen and the two Scarlatti sonata transcriptions - both clean and cool in their symmetry - seemed burdened to the point of stumbling by Mr. Yepes's rhapsodic pauses and surges. [...] In three Villa-Lobos studies, however, Mr. Yepes's generosity of phrase found sympathetic and grateful recipients [...]" (THE NEW YORK TIMES; Music Noted in Brief; Narciso Yepes Plays A Guitar Recital at Met; Bernard Holland; November 10, 1986)
• "Compared with the more flowing style of his older contemporary, Andres Segovia [...], Mr. Yepes's style could sound oddly clipped, yet his admirers pointed out that his approach allowed counterpoint to emerge with a clarity unusual on the guitar." (THE NEW YORK TIMES; Narciso Yepes, Spanish Guitarist And an Innovative Musician, 69; Allan Kozinn; May 4, 1997)

Archeoix (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget that Kozinn claims that "most of the notes [on a 6-string guitar] do in fact produce sympathetic harmonics" (Frets Magazine, February 1980, p. 39). This statement is untenable - a total fallacy - and shows how much Kozinn understands what Yepes's 10-string guitar is really about and what he meant by sympathetic resonance. Moreover, Kozinn, in 1982 (that is two years after writing two articles on Yepes), gives the tuning of the ten-string guitar's last three strings the wrong way around in Guitar Player, March 1982, page 20. So there are just two of the hundreds of examples of misinformation about this instrument, and two examples of the level of accuracy of Kozinn's reporting. Really it is bizarre to hear Yepes' style being accused of everything it is the exact opposite of. Clarity, yes; separation of contrapuntal voices, yes; but "clipped", with Yepes's technique, his obsession with purity of line and cantabile tone, and with a ten-string guitar that sustains notes after the finger leaves the fret..."clipped"? The "flowing" style of Segovia and the "clipped" style of Yepes? You have to be joking. Oh, and the Falckenhagen - I happen to play this - it is a piece that has a few "pauses and surges" written into the music. So, according to the critic quoted above, Yepes should not have played what the composer wrote? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Controversially different"

Even the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians calls Narciso Yepes' approach to technique and interpretation "controversially different" !

But please, this is not just about Yepes. If you find verifiable criticism (reviews, etc.) on some/ANY other guitarists please add it to wikipedia! (Most classical guitarists are really in need of some criticism, rather than ridiculous fan-worship.) Zeffyis (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Classical Music: The Listener's Companion (Alexander J. Morin, Harold C. Schonberg) ISBN 0879306386 which gives the following interesting information:

Yepes can be downright unmusical in his pedantic interpretations of some pieces [...], yet stunning - musically and technically - in other pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverwood (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

About the 10-string guitar & other details

Please refrain from making edits to subjects you clearly know very little about. Yepes collaborated with Ramirez, not Bernabe, to invent his guitar. Bernabe (an apprentice of Ramirez) later formed his own shop and Yepes subsequently played a Bernabe 10-string. As for your comment about Yepes's hands, this is simply ignorant as to the true reasons why Yepes invented his guitar as well as the technique of playing it (which was NOT to use open basses to simplify technique as some nitwits think - including 10-string guitarists and clueless former students of Yepes). I have the autograph manuscripts to prove that more often than not he used fretted basses rather than open ones even when the open ones were available, depending on what best served the music. Do you have these proofs??? NO. So please stick to what you actually know. (FYI Yepes had extended techniques that enabled him to fret the first string's D together with the low G on the 6th string by using the left hand thumb. Again, we have the proof of this. It was even published in one of his old Scarlatti editions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is well to be aware that this IP is used exclusively by Viktor van Niekerk (talk). Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues in your post about Narciso Yepes in my Talk Page. I have moved it here, as I don't allow unsigned posts in mine.

First, you seem to forget that Wikipedia is basically a collaborative effort. What I did was to add information (except possibly in the subject of the Luthier involved in creating the 10-string guitar), while what you did was to destroy all what I added, by reverting my edit. Besides, your presumptuous and disparaging attitude of calling "a nitwit" whoever you don't agree with, or calling "brainwashed ignorance of the masses" the lore of people in general, is offensive and uncivil; and in top of that, you have the nerve to comment "Your edits are not constructive" (and yours are?). No wonder in your talk page you have been accused of vandalism: you have still a lot to learn.

Second, I based my edit on many long, enlightening conversations I held in 1983 with Luthier Paulino Bernabé, recently deceased (from whom I purchased a fine 6-string concert guitar, which I value still more than my 1974 Ramírez), and who as you can see still has no Wikipedia article. Bernabé was a good friend of Yepes, and they met frequently in Bernabé's shop in the Calle de los Cuchilleros, close to the Plaza Mayor of Madrid, and he told me his version of the history of the 10-string guitar. If you (anonymous "User 129.94.133.166") know so much about the subject (which you surmise I know "very little" about, in spite of the fact that I'm a guitarist myself), then you ought to include a verifiable source about José Ramírez involvement in the creation of the 10-string. Personally, I prefer to believe Bernabé's words, rather than yours, a complete (and, I repeat, anonymous) unknown, who doesn't even sign his/her posts. I left Ramírez name however, with a tag inviting discussion. Discussion, not quarrel.

Third, about the hands of Yepes: you seem not to have noticed that I did not substitute or change the reasons already mentioned in any way, I just added one more and very valid reason, as annotated in my edit. Moreover, your reasoning "...he used fretted basses rather than open ones" is worthless. How many times in a given composition you happen to have no available open string to play a given note? Yepes frequently used a seventh, or even an eight fretted string to play a bass note (ordinarily played on the 6th in a normal guitar) that his short index finger could not reach, in order to play a chord! Having watched Yepes in person, in actual performance, from a first-row seat, and armed with binoculars, I happen to know what I'm talking about. Wonder if you are.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you added information that was NOT CORRECT, except for the reason you gave for Yepes's death. And it is not constructive to to add biased, unneutral opinions like Yepes was the most "notorious"...

Second, it is a well-established fact that RAMIREZ and Yepes invented his ten-string guitar. As I said, Bernabe was an apprentice at the Ramirez shop then, but the first Yepes-type ten-string guitar was a RAMIREZ guitar. Moreover, Ramirez had the idea to construct a guitarra d'amor with multiple string resonators INSIDE the body of the guitar. This was rejected by both Segovia and Yepes as impractical. It was Yepes who solved the theoretical and technical problems by adding only 4 strings tuned a very specific way (C, A#, G#, F#) alongside the normal 6 strings. You want a verifiable source? Here: Ramirez III, Jose. 1994. "The Ten-String Guitar" in Things About the Guitar. Bold Strummer. pp. 137-141. [ISBN-10: 8487969402]

Third, I clearly said Yepes fretted bass notes even when the same bass notes were available as open strings! F# or G# are very often played fretted rather than open! I have this in his own handwriting and own fingering yet you will presume to know better and call this fact "worthless" because it disproves your ignorant (unconstructive) remark about Yepes' "short hands" being a reason for playing a 10-string guitar. Furthermore, Yepes frequently uses the 7th fretted (because it is the lowest string), but not "frequently" the 8th (as you mistakenly claim), which is a minor 7th higher than the 7th string. Moreover, these strings can be used to voice chords as originally written in the urtexts by non-guitarist composers like Ponce or Rodrigo that are impossible on the 6-string (except in the edited versions). Being able to use open strings as "crutches" for a lack of technique was certainly NOT part of Yepes's entirely musical reasons for inventing his guitar - though (I will add) many ten-string guitarists today (if they happen to be second-rate technicians) like to adopt the instrument to make up for weak techniques. But this has NOTHING to do with Yepes's own performance practice on his instrument. As someone who has studied for over a decade with one of Yepes's leading (long-term) students, as someone who has thoroughly researched all aspects of the 10-string guitar, as someone who has access to many many unpublished manuscripts and annotations in Yepes's own handwriting, I can safely say that I know what I am talking about. Yepes even frets A2 and G2# on the 10th string rather than play them on the open A2 and G2# strings (strings 5 and 9) in an example I have in his own handwriting, and the reasons for doing so are in the context entirely MUSICAL and not about any technical limitations, which exist only in your imagination!

(talk), you know nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is well to be aware that IP 129.94.133.166 is used exclusively by Viktor van Niekerk (talk). Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Narciso Yepes's Revolutionary Technical Developments

This is a story that has been recounted numerous times by Yepes and by his students: "You know, the guitar is a very unusual instrument, for it seems that in every city of the world there is a great genius of the guitar, someone who knows every single thing there is to know about the guitar, someone who's genius is so great that he or she can learn nothing from anyone else. However, I have never felt that way about myself. When I was around 15, I could play virtually everything written for the guitar, but I knew I needed a teacher, so I went to see a composer and music teacher by the name of Vicente Ascencio, a very famous man in Spain. The first thing he asked me to play was a "musical scale." I played a standard guitar scale using alternating "i" and "m" fingers, and I played it about as well as any guitarist I had ever heard. Ascencio told me that my scale was not acceptable. He played a scale on the piano, which was much faster than any guitarist could play a scale. Then, he picked up a violin, and played a scale much faster than I could play. He showed me a "musical scale" on several other orchestral instruments, and told me that this is how he expected me to play a scale if I was to be a musician. I tried again to match his accepted norm for scales, but I could not do so. I then told him that this could not be done on the guitar, and, in fact, no one at the time could play guitar scales at the tempos Ascensio and others were using on standard classical instruments. He told me, "Too bad, but if you want to study music with me, you must give up the guitar. I expect you to be able to execute scales at the tempos that have long been the norm." Well, I had two choices. One was to be the "genuis of the guitar," to get mad and storm out the door. The other choice was to swallow my pride and to accept Ascencio as my teacher, where I would be obligated to perform at the level of his other students. Fortunately, I chose to stay and learn, for "the door was open" for Ascencio to be my teacher, and I chose to swallow my pride and study with him, and THIS DECISION HAS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. I went home, thought about scales, and realized that no pianist could play such rapid scales when using only two fingers on the right hand. I started using three fingers instead (ami, mia, iam), and the next week, I was able to play a "musical scale." He smiled, and told me that I did not have to give up the guitar after all. Then, he asked me for a chromatic scale in 3rds, and, again, the technique used for classical guitar at that time could not execute what other instrumentalists were doing. By the next week, I had figured out a way to play 3rds at the accepted tempo. Thus we went, week after week, and I continued to solve the difficulties to his satisfaction. Eventually, I had developed a revolutionary technique for the guitar. As a result of the experience, I have come to understand one thing:

The minute a guitarist decides he or she is a genius, and pridefully refuses to enter when the door is open to a qualified teacher, is the minute when that guitarist has brought his or her art to a dead end."

You may also wish to look up Yepes's three-fingered scales/trills techniques (www.blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=145762269&blogID=376067508 ). Most guitarists are clueless as to the mechanical/technical theory of this (they think it is just repeating a m i over and over again). But it goes with a mechanical theory that is ingenius and (as all great ideas) so simple and logical, it is amazing that no guitarist in the hundreds of years before Yepes ever realized this theory. And that is just one of the many new techniques Yepes invented.

You may add your "citation needed" comments to call this into question, but it will not take away the facts of Yepes's achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is well to be aware that IP 129.94.133.166 is used exclusively by Viktor van Niekerk (talk). Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikispam

Please see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Wikispam for discussion relevant to this edit. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality: Press Quotes / Reviews

The press quotes (reviews) section contains only positive reviews (except perhaps the last two). Thus neutrality is missing by presenting mainly one-sided views, since numerous negative reviews have been removed.

See the Wikipedia guidelines: WP:ASF

Below is the list of referenced neutral and negative reviews have been removed from the main article (see here). For a neutral point of view, the article requires also negative reviews (if referenced), esp. when these balance the positive ones and provide a broader, more "truthful"/neutral outlook.

• "Yepes can be downright unmusical in his pedantic interpretations of some pieces [...], yet stunning - musically and technically - in other pieces." (Classical Music: The Listener's Companion by Alexander J. Morin, Harold C. Schonberg; ISBN 0879306386)
• "Respectfully, I cannot place Yepes on the same level with Segovia and Bream." (Angelo Gilardino, Guitar Review, Issue 115/Winter 1999)
• "controversially different" (The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians)
• "The Spaniard Narciso Yepes, now, is famous, as much for his occasional lapses as for his occasional excellences. Both sides of Yepes are usually on display" (American record guide, 1986)
• "Narciso Yepes may sound like what the chihuahua said to the mirror, but the man himself is no joke..." (Fanfare; Joel Flegler)
• "In meiner Jugend in den Siebzigern war die „Hifi Stereophonie” das absolute Flaggschiff der gehobenen Musikrezension und eine wichtige Quelle der Information in meinem Klassik geneigten Umfeld. ... Als ich die 12 Etudes von Villa-Lobos zu spielen begann, kaufte ich von meinem schmalen Taschengeld jene Aufnahme von Narciso Yepes, die in nämlichem Blatt in allen Kriterien die Höchstbewertung erhalten hatte und als ewige Referenz bejubelt worden war. Und was hörte ich dann? Ein schon für meine damalige völlig ungebildete Wahrnehmung musikbeamtenhaft herunterbuchstabierte hölzern uninspirierte Pflichtübung ..." (Prof. Frank Bungarten; Pressto 1.2007 (in German)
• Wenn es nur die Wahl des Instruments wäre, müsste man heute Narciso Yepes neben Gustav Leonhardt und Nikolaus Harnoncourt als Pionier der Alten Musik nennen, denn er hat ja das Bach’sche Lautenwerk auf einer Barocklaute aufgenommen ... eine mehr als peinliche Aufnahme bei der Archiv-Produktion (2708030) übrigens, die nie wieder neu aufgelegt worden ist, weil man sich ihrer offenbar schämte. Diese Produktion auf zwei Vinyl-Schallplatten ist auch noch gut besprochen worden, weil Yepes als Gitarrist ein bekannter Mann war und seine Meriten hatte und weil die Deutsche Grammophon mit ihrer Archiv-Produktion Garant für Qualität war. Aber sie beweist, dass die Benutzung eines historischen Instruments aus Musik noch keine Alte Musik macht. (Peter Päffgen; GITARRE & LAUTE XXX/2008/Nº 1) (in German)

Evidential source (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This has been an ongoing problem, and I suspect this is more activity of User:Viktor van Niekerk who is currently blocked indefinitely and not permitted to edit at all. The IP address used, see http://samspade.org/whois/129.94.133.197 is similar to one of Viktor's previous sockpuppets, currently also blocked, see User talk:129.94.133.166 and http://samspade.org/whois/129.94.133.166 for a comparison. Blocking the whole IP range of the University of New South Wales would solve it I guess but that probably isn't a good thing to do.

If it persists we may need to semi-protect the page, but I don't want to do that now as your account is relatively new and I don't want to prevent your own edits. Make at least one more edit to bring your total count to ten and after your account has existed for four days it should be OK to do this. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I've reverted the removal of the unfavourable reviews. They certainly were not vandalism despite the edit summaries. The claim that they were is again consistent with Viktor's previous activity. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I've also posted a second-level content removal warning at User talk:129.94.133.197. If it is Viktor, I guess he'll just claim it's more evidence of the vendetta against him, but if it'a a newbie it's important that they know that false accusations of vandalism are not acceptable here. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From my user page

Concerning the biography of Narciso Yepes: Please, sir, what are these critiques in German doing on the English Page? Whoever submitted them should remove them to the German page or translate them. I gather from the chatter that not all guitarists are subjected to this "balanced" treatment; would the poster of the negative critiques care to explain why he/she has singled out Yepes? Lastly, the value and sources of some of these negatives seem unclear to me (i.e. "chihuahuas")and make me wonder about the poster's agenda. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.155.36 (talk • contribs) }}

Thanks for your comments. Could you be more specific about the particular critiques that concern you?

We assume good faith on the part of the contributor. The quote from Fanfare Magazine seems relevant to me (I assume that's the chihuahua you have in mind). A pity it's not more specific in its source details... date, issue number, etc..

Agree that the German would be better translated, but the untranslated text is better than a bad translation. As a quotation, it's not forbidden to have it in German. Now, if the article text were in German, that would be different.

I'd strongly suggest you create an account if you wish to contribute to this article. You can do this without publicly revealing any personal details, and that's probably a good idea too, as we have a rather persistent nuisance interested in this article, and he has been known to vigorously attack contributors who disagree with him here in his posts off-wiki. And while we can block him from editing here, we can't stop him reading, or do a lot about his activities elsewhere.

But please don't let that discourage you! Just a little caution advised, that's all. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the other point you raise is whether or not we should report negative as well as positive opinions concerning other guitarists. Yes, we should. Yepes certainly shouldn't be the only one who has a balanced treatment. Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir, my account is named Drewdavis. I do not intend to edit at the present time. For the moment I am perusing the talk archives on this article.

Concerning the new 'negatives', I still fail to see the relevance of the chihuahua comment; it looks like quote-mining and it is imposssible to know if the author was speaking of Yepes' voice or of his music. I find it inflammatory and inappropriate. I would say the ones from NY Times are balanced and I must abide them, but the dog one and the two in German indicate to me that whoever posted was desperate and that this is a smear campaign. Someone should consider revising it IMO.

Drewdavis (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC) signed Drewdavis (user)}}

I'm sure that some of Yepes' family would not have appreciated such a comment, particularly in Fanfare Magazine, and by its founder even! I took it actually that the writer was referring to the sound of Yepes' name, which is even worse and more insulting, if taken in that way. But in the context of a generally favourable review, I took it to be a journalist's attempt at humour, and not a criticism of Yepes in any way.

It's certainly politically incorrect, and while I found it amusing I take your point. Quote removed, see below. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to some non-content-related issues raised above at User talk:Drewdavis#Welcome from andrewa, and also taken the opportunity to ask about photos for this page. Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

"Narciso Yepes may sound like what the chihuahua said to the mirror, but the man himself is no joke..." (Fanfare; Joel Flegler)

Not the best sentence to quote, see above. I thought of shortening it to eliminate the attempt at humour, but the quote then makes little sense. If we can find the article, I think a more appropriate quotation from it should go back in... probably in the favourable section in fact, and with the full academic apparatus this time. Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yepes critical of own recording

Hi!

Just thought I'd let everyone know, that Yepes was rather critical of his own playing. Quote:

Many years ago (it must have been in 1983, I guess) I met Narciso Yepes in Torino, Italy at the end of one of his concerts at the Conservatorio. It was my first one and I was a great "fan" of him. At that time I didn't know of his lute recording, but I had listen to his complete Bach lute works recording on the 10 strings guitar at least 100 times. So I told him and I expressed my enthusiasm for it and he got back to me (I was 17 years old...) with a great smile and said: "throw it away, It's not good at all." I had the pleasure to study (10 strings guitar, at that time) for a few years with one of his Italian students and met Narciso Yepes a few times more: he never meant too much of that recording, as far as I can remember. [...]

— source

Critiche veritas (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Narciso Yepes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514063333/http://guitarreando.iespana.es/yepes.htm to http://guitarreando.iespana.es/yepes.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20020719182139/http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/yepes.htm to http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/yepes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231918/http://www.just-video.net/video/joaquin-rodrigo-concierto-de-aranjuez-by-narciso-yepes.html to http://www.just-video.net/video/joaquin-rodrigo-concierto-de-aranjuez-by-narciso-yepes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narciso Yepes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116041414/http://guitarreview.com/store/115.html to http://www.guitarreview.com/store/115.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)