Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to be re-uploading it with better audio.

You're welcome, Mario.

Unfortunately the audio restoration here is still a bit primitive. I'll be uploading it again with better audio restoration. Thanks for the encouragements, though.

You are a legend

Gracias. Más adelante reharé el sonido con una restauración de mejor calidad.

不客氣。😊

Thank you, Enrique. I must tell you, however, that I will still upload my proper restoration of this recital at a later time. When I started restoring the archival materials, my computer and recent data (not backed up) were destroyed by cyber criminals, so I had to start over with the restorations. I didn't feel like beginning with this recital again because its restoration would take several weeks of work, which I had then just finished and lost. The version you see here was merely a test upload to check the video quality of different output settings. The audio was not properly restored yet. I will revisit this recital's restoration in the months to come. I'm glad if I did is of use to you and others who appreciate Narciso's work and thank you for your support.

Dankie, Charl. Ek waardeer dit. Sal nog later dit oor doen met beter klank restorasie, maar op die oomblink is dit belangrikker om eers my dokumentêr oor Fritz klaar te maak en die publikasies van sy musiek. Groete!

It *is* beautiful and it *is* is disappointing that some people live in a world not of phenomena (i.e., representations of reality) but in a WORD-world (i.e., RE-representation of reality, a verbal hall of mirrors). A typical example of this is when they reiterate what one 'critic' once said about a "clipped" style, which is crazy (if by "clipped" said 'critic' meant staccato as opposed to "clipped" in the sense that audio engineers intend) because, if you actually listen, Yepes's playing is some of the most legato playing that there has ever been on the guitar, with the exception of *instances* where he *chose* to play staccato or, perhaps, where the composer *indicated* it. But some people, living in a verbal hall of mirrors, out of touch with empirical reality, talk as if generally Yepes played everything with a "clipped" sound. It's insane. It is not, however, that some consider this as mere "football." I believe you're referring to the opinion of a user called "Havardr Ivansson." If you look into who/what this entity is, you will actually find, e.g., someone who called for Trump supporters to overthrow the democratically elected government of the US prior to the violence of January 6, 2021. (Again, there is this phenomenon of living in a world of words or beliefs--about a "stolen" election etc.--opposed to empirical reality.) More often than not, 'critics' of Yepes tend to be representatives of certain worldviews. By that I mean something more sophisticated than just that they are "Havardr Ivansson" types, but this is not the place for getting into subtle arguments or detailed evidence (which I do have, however). I'll just say, in short, music presents unique problems because it cannot be reduced either to somebody's beliefs or just to empirical reality. I do *not* have to "respect" somebody's opinion or belief if he claims that a "clipped" sound was characteristic of Yepes's style. That's not an "alternative fact;" it's a lie...or a delusion, at least, because empirical reality says otherwise. And if ears cannot be trusted, we can *see* 'objectively' or (I prefer the term) inter-subjectively on a spectrogram that Yepes's sound is not full of gaps. But at the same time music involves mental and, indeed, metaphysical aspects that cannot be reduced to empirical reality. And here we have the other side of the spectrum of Yepes haters, namely, people who *do* naively reduce works of music to texts or (more arbitrarily) to some or other (recorded) performance with which they have already aligned their sense of identity. So, they encounter something other than what they are used to, something different than what they expect, and they hate it, because it is different, because they can't understand why it is different other than by making it "wrong." The theoretical framework for such understanding is missing from music education. And, more often than not, they hate it because they expect (arbitrarily, other than for the fact that it is typical of the twentieth century) that "good" musicians must always keep a "rock solid beat" (which Yepes doesn't do because he makes microrhythmic adjustments everywhere, always humanising or personalising the sounds, unless the ideas of a particular piece *are* straightforwardly *rhythmic* ideas, in which case he does play them straight). Or they expect flat and miniaturised dynamics and generally lightweight sonorities because, again, those *were* characteristic of twentieth-century tastes, reflected not only in the neoclassicism of Stravinsky (and all the "little Stravinskies" who wrote for Segovia, namely, Tansman [Stravinsky's assistant], Tedesco, Torroba, Ponce, etc.) but also in the tastes of other *modernist* movements like the so-called "early music" and "classical guitar" movements, all of which (as Richard Taruskin rightly showed) 'returned' to a past that never existed by viewing music through a fundamentally twentieth-century lens even as it purported to be "historically informed" or "Romantic." So, of course, when they hear Yepes playing not metronomically, not with a lightweight sound, and not with miniaturised dynamics (among other things), because he personalised what he played, with a heavier, darker, fuller sound, with electrifying vibrato, with impossibly legato fluidity, and a huge dynamic range with the attendant sense of '3-dimensional' depth within the musical space--of course, of course--to them it sounds so-called barbaric. It's like representations of human beings and human suffering (to say nothing of anthropomorphised gods!) to the eyes of Muslim artists who expect only pretty geometric patterns. Barbaric! Blasphemous! Fatwa! Death to him! "Yepes should never have recorded anything!" as one British-Brazilian guitarist aligned with Julian Bream once wrote. No. It is human. It *is* beautiful. And it damn-well does have a right to exist. (As does the geometric art, by the way.) It is not arbitrary. It is not incompetence or ignorance or a "rhythmic mess." There is a conscious artist, a genius, and a tenable philosophy of music behind it. Thanks for your comment, David, with which I agree, of course. I sometimes like to unpack these things a bit more.

Will listen thanks a lot

Thank you, I could publish my own edition of it, but there are others that have to be prioritised. It will be a while.

@@10String Great, this is more like a marathon than a sprint. I will wait.

Ryan, Re the latter, no, and the former, yes. Fritz has been living in Australia since the end of 2019. I should point out that he has asked me not to disseminate his contact details under any circumstances. (Some people don't know how to respect personal boundaries, which is why neither of us is as accessible as we used to be, unfortunate though it may be for persons who are not at fault.)

@@10String thanks Viktor. If you speak to him, please send him my regards. I’m over in Adelaide now - I’d imagine he was over east but fancied a game of chess with him if I was over that side. Stay well!

There is no way for things not to be damaged. All things are representations and the nature of representation is to reduce and alter.

@@10String This is a very beautiful answer.(like a tree changes,and also people) Beautiful.In Museums too... Pictures

@@10String thank you

Of course, even things in museums (e.g., paintings) are not entirely original. They all deteriorate on shorter or longer time scales and become more or less mixes of 'original' and restored materials before being entirely enfolded or "implicate" once more. Very naive minds say "Art is for ever!" The same sort of naive minds that build nuclear power plants that have to be maintained for 20,000 years (or else poison life on Earth for as long) when humans haven't even been civilized for 20K years and human civilization isn't likely to survive for those 20K years to come, given our generally destructive stupidity as a whole. (But somehow "Art is for ever!" as the guitar 'historian' or mythographer, Graham Wade, once replied to me.) I have no stomach for 'positive' / 'optimistic' stupidity. There is a great psychiatrist and art historian who speaks of those people who whistle a happy tune while walking over a cliff into an abyss.