𝘕𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘰 𝘠𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘴 • 𝙍𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙣 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖 ♫ documental en español • English subs + restored

[@10String]

CONTENTS: MUSIC DIALOGUE [00:07] Canarios (Sanz) [00:57] Saltarello (Galilei, trans. Yepes) [03:09] Romance (Yepes) [04:33] Re "Jeux interdits" (1952) [07:29] In the recording studio [07:51] Prelude no. 1 (Villa-Lobos) [08:27] Etude no. 1 (Villa-Lobos) [08:44] In the recording studio (continued) [09:29] Etude no. 12 (Villa-Lobos) [11:51] Re work and rest [12:35] Brian Boru's March (Irish traditional, arr. Yepes) [15:02] Home and away 1 (the sacrifices of a concert artist) [17:08] Minuet (Rameau, trans. Yepes) [20:09] Re concert programming and Catalan music [21:57] La filla del Marxant (Llobet) [22:30] Re childhood in the countryside and a musically important conceptual realisation (i.e., that the reality of a thing is always more and different than one's perception of it) [23:22] La filla del Marxant (Llobet) [24:11] From Lorca to the World stage [24:26] Concerto no. 1 op. 30, Allegro maestoso (Giuliani) with Eduard Fischer and the Štátny komorný orchester Žilina [25:38] Re live (acoustic) sound and the reductive nature of sound represented by mechanical/electronic means [26:33] Concerto RV 93, Allegro giusto (Vivaldi, trans. Yepes) with Fischer and the ŠKO Žilina [27:00] Re playing a stick before he owned a guitar [27:50] Home and away 2 [29:42] Concerto RV 93, Lento (Vivaldi, trans. Yepes) with Fischer and the ŠKO Žilina [31:37] Narciso's love of Asia [31:59] Prelude no. 4 (Villa-Lobos) [audio only] [32:12] Narciso's love of Asia (continued) [32:48] Prelude BWV 996 (Bach) [audio only] [32:58] Re Japan's fascination with the guitar [34:09] Prelude BWV 996 (Bach) [video] [35:41] Revising some texts [36:17] Propulsiones (Balada) [38:10] The concert artist [38:34] Passepied no. II (Bacarisse) [39:28] El abejorro (Pujol) [40:10] Credits

[@lute323]

The era when Yepes visited Japan was an unprecedented guitar boom. Many young people were eager to play classical guitar especially aiming at playing Romance. We had TV show in which classical guitarists teach students for many years. Yepes also invited one of the Japanese TV shows. He activated and raised "guitar fever" in Japan. I was one of them. He became one of the most successful and well-known classical guitarists. I still keep his signature on his record jacket in 1970's. A memory of my good old classical guitar days!

[@10String]

Thank you. As Fritz Buss (Narciso's student, my teacher) says in a documentary film that I am making, whenever Fritz was with Narciso in Europe, there were always Japanese people studying with him. Narciso loved visiting Japan.

[@manelg.2359]

Muchas gracias por compartir. Un material histórico fundamental!!

[@10String]

Muchas gracias.

[@luisenrique4398]

Excelente documentário...un real concertista de la guitarra ...Salve !! Narciso Yepes..

[@ursulazangl1655]

Thank you for the English subtitles.very good to follow.Most beautiful reportage.A real present. What a unique person he was.Danke!😍

[@10String]

It's my pleasure.

[@giuseppeferreri6640]

Fantastico bravo 👏

[@vicentemurcia]

Ilustre murciano y grande entre los grandes de la guitarra.

[@cogonitguitar4334]

Pienso lo mismo de este gran hombre de Campo de Lorca; siempre lo admiré como persona y como músico. Totalmente entregado a su público y a su gente. Una técnica propia impecable, de una musicalidad incomparable y una limpieza depuradísima. Yo siempre lo coloqué en el "top" 10 de los mejores guitarristas (de todos los estilos, a pesar de lo difícil de comparar unos estilos y otros). A pesar de ello, siempre hubo algún leguleyo que lo criticó (sin argumentos, según pude comprobar). Insisto: uno de los mejores sin paliativos.

[@ursulazangl1655]

So you have a Link för the Film .I couldnt find.would like to Watch

[@ursulazangl1655]

I discovered there is more behind these mountains

[@10String]

It is a very important lesson, I suppose in general but especially for a classical musician. There is always something more and different to be discovered behind the written notes, or "beyond" or "between." These words are metaphors and not meant to be taken literally. The same goes for musical notation, symbols. They are just pointers to something other than themselves. They are just representations, less and different than the things they indicate. The same goes for any one performance or interpretation of a piece of music. Too bad, so many musicians and 'experts' never learned this lesson and, instead of learning it, commit never-ending epistemic violence against their Others.

[@ursulazangl1655]

What does epistemic mean?

[@ursulazangl1655]

Beautiful.Behind the Mountains you Can also Use to regard persons.It is important Not to put an Etikett on a person without knowing i Him or her.Its Not all that outside can be seen

[@ursulazangl1655]

Landscape looks like a paradise

[@10String]

epistemic. "relating to knowledge"

[@ursulazangl1655]

The bumblebee☺

[@ursulazangl1655]

I would like to Watch Jeux Interdits.where can I find the complete version

[@10String]

I would like to watch it too, but I haven't found it. Sorry.

[@ursulazangl1655]

Anachronistic

[@10String]

*anachronistic.* "belonging or appropriate to another period, especially so as to seem old-fashioned during the present period." Narciso's point, although it does not come across explicitly, is this: Although there is recording technology today (since the late 19th century) and amplification, hearing a musician playing live and *acoustically* is not anachronistic or outdated. You never know the true quality of a musician until you have heard them in person, with no machines interceding between their sound and your senses. Recording equipment (also amplification) always *reduces* and otherwise *alters* some qualities of the acoustic sound. For one, when we hear sounds directly, there is no limit on the loudness of the sound other than the pain threshold. Artists like Narciso or myself can have a large range of "dynamics" (or volume) from *very* very soft to very loud sounds. This way, we can emphasize or express things that are musically significant, both synchronically ("at one point in time") and diachronically ("through time"). For example, it may be necessary to play a melodic line or bass line louder than its accompaniment so that the two things (melody and accompaniment) do not become confused, sounding as if they occupy the same level within the musical space. (The accompaniment has to sound softer in the background; the melody has to sound louder in the foreground.) "Diachronically" (through time), we want the music to get louder or softer according to the changing intensity or nature of the emotions it expresses over time. In actuality, there is no limit on this expressive range other than the skill of the artist. But the machines that record or amplify those sounds force musicians to accept artificial limits. There is an artificial loudness limit, which has nothing to do with how human beings actually hear sound; it has to do with the nature and limitations of electronic equipment. Now, this is not a problem for (I dare to say) some primitive musics that just have a flat, consistent level of loudness and uniformity of expression, whether it is consistently soft or always loud (like some pop or heavy metal music). But if, as a classical or any other serious artist you understand the need for a dynamic range (for correct expression and variety of expression and intensity of expression), then it is a big problem that electronic equipment imposes this artificial loudness limit. If I play louder than this limit, my recorded sound is distorted by the machine. I must either play softer than I would like to play, or adjust the equipment to be less sensitive. But now there are other problems because it is not possible to play the softest sounds even softer in relation to the (softened) loud sounds. So now my *range* has been compressed. My expression has been limited by the machine. And if the equipment is adjusted to be less sensitive, now it does not record the softer sounds correctly. They now become distorted or covered by equally soft noise, even the electronic equipment's own self-created noise. For another thing, electronic devices seem to be more sympathetic and responsive to tinny, metallic sounds, which (in acoustic terms) means sounds that contain a lot of high-pitched overtones, like the sound of the harpsichord or the guitar when played by run-of-the-mill guitarists. Recording or amplifying equipment tends to exaggerate non-musical noises like clicks or squeaks in a way that the human ear does not naturally hear those noises. (One can attenuate such noises in post-production to get a more natural sound.) But, at the same time, recording equipment also accommodates tinny tone production more than it accommodates sounds with a lot of energy concentrated in the fundamental note and its lower overtones. I, however, take great care in my right hand to attenuate harsh-sounding upper overtones. In actuality, that produces a more beautiful tone. But recording equipment reduces and alters the nature of this sound. It distorts the sound. My sound has to be heard in person, to be properly appreciated. Narciso still saw value in live performance. He did not see it as "anachronistic" or outdated, after the invention of recording technology, because he understood that there is a difference between the live (acoustic) sound and a recorded (or amplified) sound and that the latter is not the "true" or "real" sound but just another form of representation. (All representation is reduction and alteration.) For some musicians, this difference (this alteration) means an improvement. For others, like Narciso and I, it means more of a reduction. We cannot eschew or avoid recording, but we understand that it is a compromised thing. Of course, Narciso is also talking about an "atmosphere" or "emotion" or "energy" of playing live, to use such metaphorical terms, but that's another topic and one that doesn't interest me as much.

[@ursulazangl1655]

Thank you for this good explanation.-Yes,it means reduction.Thats why life performance is so precious. You never forget life performances.My listening has reduced when I was operated on my right ear.There was a tumour inside.They had to cut through nerves.I could have lost hearing at this ear doctors told me before the OP.I was very afraid.But I lost the most high tones.Can hear but not the same like at the left ear. But I do not only hear by my ears.Its with the whole body.Music gets inside.My soul hears like before. Your Music is different to commercial music etc.Its very precious.Even when I listen to it it never gets "used " or boring.It cannot loose its value because its music as music is meant to be.unique

[@ursulazangl1655]

There are great musicians who were deaf and composers

[@ursulazangl1655]

Often we are not conscious of what we are given for instance ears to hear or eyes to see hands to play when we are about to loose something we recognize how precious it is

[@10String]

Thank you so much. The left ear is more important for understanding or appreciating music because musicality is seated in the right brain, and the right brain processes the left side of the body, including the left ear.