Talk:Miguel Llobet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article guesses that Llobet is not well-known because of his early death. While a death at 60 is unfortunate and sad, is it really early? Most extremely well-known composers died at a much younger age (mozart at 35, beethoven at 57, schubert at 31, Mahler at 51, Tchaikovsky at 53, Bizet at 37, Borodin at 54, and I can continue...). So whatever reasons there are for him not to have become well-known, I doubt it's his age at death. Nyh 10:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement. As you can see, I made some significant additions to the page some time after your 5 August post. I believe the real reasons for Llobet's obscurity are complex. His small output of original compositions, coupled with an even smaller output of recordings have left his legacy sorely deficient. While a performer such as Segovia may have left no original compositions of importance, his vast recorded legacy ensures his place in history. Prior to the age of recording, a musician's only chance at immortality was a significant body of compositions. In addition, the timing Llobet's life and death put him in Segovia's shadow; bad luck for him, I suppose. Had Segovia championed Llobet's compositions, which happen to be very good, he may well have been more widely recognized. But, in all probability, Segovia avoided these compositions not, as has been suggested, because they are difficult to play (which they are) but because of some personal animosity between the two players stemming from an acrimonious severance on the termination of Segovia's short period of instruction under Llobet. Rguitphil