Talk:Narciso Yepes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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:

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 Kozinn, Yepes should not have played what the composer wrote? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


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)