Talk:Romance (guitar piece)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Original Name of "Romance"

Does anyone know the original name of the guitar piece? Nautafoeda 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanza? I'm not sure about the spelling, but I'm pretty sure it's pronounced that way. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is because it is an anonymous composition, we don't even know its original title. Deliusfan (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific?

Presenting something completely new; and doing it so blatenly - without any citations! - is not a good way of doing things. ref You can add your information, once you have sorted out the references and citations. (What's your hurry? hehehe) (You do realize that you're not more important than the rest of us, right? I'm wondering, because you remove the previous verison with citations etc. completely; and then fill it with your 4 lines, without any citation whatsoever.)

Note also: What you call lies and seek so pertinently to remove, is part of our history. One does not treat history, by removing other people's research and widely known opinions, as if they never existed; it is instead a part of our history. (And one also does not just delete other peoples research, if newer facts emerge. Other people's research has to be consolidated.)

Research and presentation of information should not restrict things, such that they become unchangeable (oh: there's a difference between a neutral presentation and activism - these arguments also apply to your handling of the 10-string guitar page. In wikipedia we should work together, and not against each other) Spider oooodfspider (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

One should not rewrite history, by removing things that have become a part of our history (no matter if you like it, or not). Try reflecting on this: History is never a snapshot. Fact is never timeless. (It's all a process.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider oooodfspider (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above

It is NOT Yepes's "version", as you call it. 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 had been plagiarised by an audience member from his concert all those years ago. 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 a false claim. I do not think that Yepes was a lier!

The "research" you refer to will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Whose "research"? Matanya Ophee who claims every other piece was originally Ukrainian/Russian? Amateur guitarists cum publishers, not qualified as musicologists/graphologists/scientists, but with vested interests in publishing companies? 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 have something to gain by attributing the authorship to someone other than Yepes and they all fail to take in the fact that Yepes wrote it not for the film but as a young boy. They all dismiss Yepes because they know that versions of the piece were published and appeared in a film before Jeux interdits. But none of them has taken into account the true cronology of the events, that Yepes (by his own admission) wrote the piece as a child and NOT specifically for Jeux interdits. They also fail to take into consideration the performance Yepes gave of the piece as a child, between acts at a theatre performance, and the possibility that it was plagiarised.

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 with the text "melody by Sor" added to the bottom of it by god-knows-who. Part of the manuscript/s would have to be cut off for radiocarbon dating or another form of scientific authentication. 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, 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, or even pre-1933.

As for the citations, I will soon have them and will again present a counter-history to your "history". What is "history" anyway? History is just a story that most people agree to tell each other. And how truthful can history be when it disregards first-hand oral accounts of evens, but holds published, citable accounts up as "truth" even when the people involved in writing this history had no direct experience of what they write about????

Narciso Yepes is the original author of this piece and those who knew him in person attest to it. By his own confession on his deathbed, he is the author of this piece! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - unsigned comment by 129.94.133.166 (talk · contribs)

As of 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC), the section claiming Yepes as the originator is still unsourced. I've tagged it as such: unpublished hearsay is not up to standards of verifiability (see WP:V) and it will be removed if no sources appear pronto. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference improvements

Refs #6 and #7 need considerable improvement; it's not sufficient third-party citation to link out to some PDF or JPG on the Web somewhere (i.e. [1] and [2]) without demonstration that they're in some credible context. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song is also used in the anime [excel saga]

In the first episode of [Excel Saga], Lord Ilpalazzo is seen playing the first few bars of the song before becoming aggrivated and throwing the guitar on the floor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.65.154 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romance (song) → Romance (guitar piece) – Romance is originally (and still today - best known as...) a solo instrumental guitar work. It is NOT a vocal SONG! (note: there do exists arrangements for voice, but these are not original). The word song should not appear in the title as it is misleading. The words guitar piece are more appropriate. Romanceguitar (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move per nominator's rationale but the new title should be Romance (composition) per WP:NCM (in the last para: "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using '(composition)' or '(instrumental)'.) Incidentally, Carnival of Venice (song) should be moved on the same grounds. — AjaxSmack 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support but to title Romance (guitar piece) - as in the original suggestion. Romance (composition) is not appropriate, since there are numerous compositions with the title "Romance" (which would lead to more disambiguation etc. etc.). The particular work in question here, is in fact strictly an original guitar piece (with arrangements being mentioned in the article: link). Anyone looking for information on the work would include the word "guitar" in a google search: e.g. Romance guitar and not Romance composition. A move to Romance (guitar piece) would be the most appropriate. Romanceguitar (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Romance" songs

Now that links to Romance (guitar piece) have been fixed no need for [Romance (song)] to redirect here, should go to main dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder

Where is that famous cylinder from around 1900 mentioned in the article? Does it exist or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.148.120 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The headache with wax cylinder recordings is their extreme fragility. However, the transcription removes that doubt: it was undertaken specifically to address this question, and so rates as secondary evidence. Jack Silver was the team leader on a major DOREMI project to transcribe early recordings of the guitar repertoire in the 1950s, addressing this question, and was still active in the Toronto area as recently as 2007. Although many cylinders were original recordings, they were also released as limited mass production, and this is the case here, making it somewhat pointless to ask where "it" is: there may well be a number of copies out there still.

Equally, the refusal to recognise such data as there is, particularly when it is independantly corroborated as is the case here, is wilfilly unacademic: on the available evidence, a probable attribution to Fernando Sor seems safe, provided it is qualified in some way, "probably", perhaps.

The question of dating parlour music as narrowly as is the case here is somewhat suspect: in reality, in the days before broadcast media, music was commonplace in the middle-class for their evenings entertainment from the rise of the social grouping in the 15th century onwards: as soon as instruments were available, they were played. Indeed, the Boccacio suggests this was the case far earlier still, which somewhat over-eggs the case here: whether you call it chamber or parlour music makes little difference, it was clearly music available to the public, recorded in score form in personal chapbooks, a vastly under-researched subject in Europe - the UK has the Head of Music at Sothebys, Graham Wells, to thank for his systematic extraction of all such documents from auction, as it vastly improved our knowledge of the music of the general population before audio recording existed, no longer do we have to put up with the "trad" label of the collectors of the folk repertoire of the early 20th century, we're starting to realise that many such tunes (although mot all) had identifiable composers, often from thr stage, people like Shakespeare's clown Will Kemp. That somewhat diverges from the case here, though: to return to the specific, the earliest known recording is attributed, so respect the attribution, please.

Nich yaka misyachna

Regarding the song "Nich yaka misyachna" mentioned in the article. It is not clear who borrowed from whom here if at all. The first versio of "Nich" recognizable as "Nich" but with no connection to the Romance at all is from 1914. Then, in the late 1910s it suddenly, purely out of nowhere, acquires the motive known from the Romance - the earliest known version of "Nich" with the motive is from 1919. Most notable here are the first six notes of "Nich". In the 1914 version, those are repeating. In the 1919 version, they already take their modern form (though the entire melody is still different from modern) - exactly the form which musically connects it to the Romance. But since we know nothing about who and when wrote the Romance, we can only speculate if any borrowing occured.--Alexmagnus (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romance (guitar piece). 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 04:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recording??

While the sample recording is very good, it's a more complex version that the one most commonly heard, with at least a minute-long intro that's normally skipped. Might be worth adding a more representative one? Even the link to the MusOpen page shows a printed score that is minus the intro.

Agreed, this is not appropriate recording for an encyclopedia citation. Its a nice performance, but is a free arrangement by this guitarist. Deliusfan (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]