User talk:Spider oooodfspider

Romance
It is NOT "Yepes's version". Yepes originally wrote the piece as a young boy (NOT for the film Jeux interdits). He performed it in Lorca at a theatre shortly after composing it. At the age of 13 he heard another guitarist perform it as an "anonymous" composition, but being humble did not confront the guitarist. The piece was plagiarised. Yepes admitted that he was the original author of the piece in a radio interview and towards the end of his life when he was dying of cancer and had nothing to gain from making this claim. I do not think that Yepes was a lier!

The "research" you refer to will not stand up to academic scrutiny. Whose "research" Matanya Ophee who claims every other piece was originally Ukrainian/Russian? Ophee who is not a qualified musicologist, as far as I know, but trained as a pilot? Or the publisher Ricordi which could make a lot of money out of owning the copyright by attributing the piece to some obscure/invented guitarist? They all ahve something to gain and they all fail to take in the fact that Yepes wrote it not for the film but as a young boy.

If you want to talk "research" then we need to demand that an actual MANUSCRIPT be produced for authentication, not a pdf of a photocopy. Part of the manuscript would have to be cut off for radiocarbon dating. And we would have to insist on professional graphological examinations as well, not done by self-trained musicologists or individuals with a vested interest in publishing companies.

And do not tell me, as if you know anything, what is best for the legacy of the person you are conspiring against in all this. The official verdict from Yepes's own words and those of his widow and family is that he was the original composer of this piece and that it was written around 1933. The young boy did not write it down but invented it in his mind as a gift to play for his mother.

If you have concrete PROOF to the contrary, then lets see it! Lets see real scientists investigate the paper, the ink and the handwriting of your so-called "originals" and authenticate them as being from the 19th century.

PS. The article cited as the source for arguments about Romance is questionable. First, it is an online article and not a published, peer-reviewed article, so its authority can be questioned. Second, that "article" cites sources that are even more questionable, such as emails from Ophee (a trained pilot / publisher), not a peer-reviewed musicological publication or dating done by means of scientific methods by experts. Third, you cannot cite a pdf image of a photocopy of a so-called "earlier" or "original" text! Fourth, upon what evidence does Ricordi base its attribution of the piece to Rubira? What is the so-called evidence that Rubira wrote the piece in the 19th century? If there is anything concrete, CITE it! Cite original, verifiable texts that make the arguments, not your buddy's little internet article (which no real academic/scholar would accept as being proof of anything). Finally, lets have some proof that this "Antonio Rubira" character even existed in reality. I may be wrong on this last point, but something about it smells fishy and contrived so a publisher can make money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)