I would like to add a few words to the many that are written these days on the occasion of the 20 years from the death of the great Spanish guitarist.
It’s obvious that the flattering comments for the art and the life of Segovia are unnecessary. Of course, that’s how it goes with anniversaries. The positive aspects are highlighted, and anything that could shadow the image of the deceased is put aside. And I find that both sensible and useful. Sensible because, aiming to an objective review, the reviewer considers the times, the mediums and the circumstances the person faced, foregoing mentioning any flaws and weaknesses. And useful, because the gain is multiple - mostly for the young - by the idolizing, or even ‘divinizing’ of the composer, since he embodies the model that inspires and guides them.
In the case of Andrés Segovia, this rule was not transgressed. He became an icon and a legend while still alive for millions of fans and friends of the guitar, but he faced vehement disputes and exaggerated oppositions throughout his long-lasting artistic course. Today, twenty years after his death, with both sides giving ground, we can estimate more justly the role he played, and what he left behind.
photo by Maria Papadi
Speaking of exaggeration and silly estimation of facts, I remember a conversation I happened to witness many years ago, where the fanatic of the group insisted that Bach could not be so great since ‘…he wasn’t but a small-time courtier, a little man who writes for God, not caring for human problems!...’ while in another conversation, the ill-timed criticism turned to Eleutherios Venizelos who was more or less characterized as a fascist because of some bills he presented before Parliament! It’s not rare for all of us to hear such opinions, especially when referring to people and facts of the past. Completely superficially and effortlessly, there are comments – often coming from ‘serious’ arguers – that really surprise us. The most usual of them – and quite subtle – is the concept of the young student who doesn’t like Bach performed by Kazals, Landofska or Segovia, overseeing the fact that he holds a record that was written half a century ago, when people, life circumstances, and ideas about music were totally different. Other times, when in generalised conclusions the conversation spreads to nations and communities, in a way that it scares me to think that after a couple of centuries we will be subjected to that kind of criticism: the Greeks in the beginning of the 3rd millennium, were part of an economic trust by the name of ‘European Union’, they ate and drunk excessively listening from Tsitsani’s music to Bach’s, but they didn’t give a damn (although they were aware of the fact) that every day 30.000 children died from hunger!
Beyond all these, for me and Vaggelis who lived Segovia closely, there wouldn’t be any reason for his ‘divinization’, if the disposition for objective criticism didn’t prevail inside us, as much as the need to give justice for his contribution to the guitar. For us, Andrés Segovia was the greatest artist who ever contributed so greatly in the establishment and popularisation of the instrument, reasonably gaining world recognition. As reasonably he was considered a top performer in his time and, lastly, even more reasonably he is placed among the ‘one of a kind’ instrument people
