# The oldest composer I have ever known! (Leo Ornstein)



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

You guess right...I'm not speaking about Mozart but about* Leo Ornstein*, born in Russia in 1892 and died in USA in 2002!

110 years...

He composed many nice things, he was very original.

Suicide in an airplaine is among them...

I just bought his CD...






http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&b...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CEgQsAQwBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ornstein

He used sone clusters as Béla Bartók.

A guy who knew 78 RPM, 33 rpm, 45 rpm and CDs....quite well....

For you to be followed. For me he's a new composer!

Martin

Marc-André Hamelin a great Quebequer piano player plays his works...


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

That's not Hamelin's interpretation though.





Though I must admit, Hamelin's is much more suitable to my tastes.

Another fantastic Ornstein piece, the Wild Men's Dance:





You can really hear a maddened waltz theme in it, it's most interesting!

However, after all he did for the avant-garde movement, he turned away from it relatively early on and started writing more "accessible" music. It's sad.

Though, he didn't write all the way until his death, he retired at 97.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...after all he did for the avant-garde movement, he turned away from it relatively early on and started writing more "accessible" music. It's sad.

Why is that "sad"? Mozart wrote some rather "accessible" music... as did Beethoven ("Moonlight Sonata", etc...) Bach (Brandenburg Concertos) etc... Or perhaps you imagine that inaccessibility or intentional obscurity is somehow a measure of artistic merit?


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...after all he did for the avant-garde movement, he turned away from it relatively early on and started writing more "accessible" music. It's sad.
> 
> Why is that "sad"? Mozart wrote some rather "accessible" music... as did Beethoven ("Moonlight Sonata", etc...) Bach (Brandenburg Concertos) etc... Or perhaps you imagine that inaccessibility or intentional obscurity is somehow a measure of artistic merit?


Not at all. But it's actually the other way around. In his avant-garde phase he was very nearly at the forefront of music in his time. However, he, for whatever reason, turned away from it (his works during that phase showed some true genius), to pursue neo-romantic music. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I feel as though he could have achieved a lot more, because after he turned from his avant-garde music, he faded into obscurity.

Mozart did write accessible music, but comparing his sonata in C K545 to his far more daring, much deeper works such as the Requiem (the music of a man well aware that he was dying), you will find that easily accessible is not always better. I do not seek to discredit accessible music, I simply wish Ornstein, in this one particular instance, would have been better served had he continued pursuing the brilliant body of work he created in his youth.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Not at all. But it's actually the other way around. In his avant-garde phase he was very nearly at the forefront of music in his time. However, he, for whatever reason, turned away from it (his works during that phase showed some true genius), to pursue neo-romantic music. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I feel as though he could have achieved a lot more, because after he turned from his avant-garde music, he faded into obscurity.

I'll not debate whether Ornstein's later works were better or worse than his more avant-gard efforts as I have barely heard anything by him. I just questioned the notion of linking accessibility with artistic merit.

In some instances an artist's earlier works comes across as the most experimental and daring simply because the style or form he or she employs is quite new. The artist may continue in that artistic language... delving deeper. As a result the rest of the art world may seemingly move on... but this does not necessarily that the artist has sold-out or become irrelevant... or that the later work is weaker.

By way of example I'll draw upon my own field of expertise, the visual arts. In the 1870s Claude Monet was surely seen as one of the most daring artists... certainly a leader of the avant-gard. His innovations in painting formed the foundation of Impressionism. By 1920, Impressionism was old-school. Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism had all come and gone and the art world was on the verge of Surrealism. Yet Monet's late paintings of waterlillies are among his greatest achievements... regardless of the fact that he continued to labor in what had become a rather "accessible" visual language.

I have little doubt that many composers turned their back upon the innovations of the avant-gard considering them to be the wrong route or even something of a dead end. I have read criticism of the Minimalists that calls them reactionaries for having rejected atonalism. Penderecki is commonly targeted in a similar manner for not continuing in his harsh avant-gard direction. Reading up on him, however, I find that the composer came to the point where he felt that academicized Modernism as promoted in the American and Western--European academies was just as limiting as the Social Realism pushed in Poland and the USSR. His decision to employ religious texts and forms in later works, on the other hand, was unpopular with both East and West... yet something he felt necessary.

Of course these are but a few examples. My only intention was to note that accessibility is no measure of artistic merit one way or the other... neither is an artist's relevance to the avant-gard. Bach was almost written of by late in his career as old-fashioned in spite of the fact that today we recognize that his latest works were among the most profound things he ever did.

Mozart did write accessible music, but comparing his sonata in C K545 to his far more daring, much deeper works such as the Requiem (the music of a man well aware that he was dying), and you will find that easily accessible is not always better. I do not seek to discredit accessible music, I simply wish Ornstein, in this one particular instance, would have been better served had he continued pursuing the brilliant body of work he created in his youth.

Again, I'll not debate you with regard to Ornstein. I have noticed, at least within the visual arts, that a great many artists attained a degree of brilliance quite early in their career, only to burn out... and drag out the remainder of their career achieving very little. Perhaps this is due to the Modernist push toward the ever new the truly original is often confused with mere novelties.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't think Ornstein turned away from writing "daring" music early on. He was actually "consistently inconsistent" as the notes of my Naxos disc of his music observes. His music runs the whole gamut of styles prevalent in the C20th from Romanticism to Impressionism to atonality and beyond. & in no particular order or logic - he would apparently be working on a number of different pieces in totally different styles at the same time. The Naxos disc has his Piano Sonata No. 8 (written in his nineties) and it's actually much harder for me to comprehend than his 4th sonata, written in the 1920's. I doubt that MJTTOMB has actually listened to a disc of his music in full - like Janice Weber's on Naxos or Hamelin's. There is no progression that I can detect in his music from simple to complex or vice versa. One must remember that much of his music was never written down - he played it from memory. We only have a handful of the nine piano sonatas he composed. He's probably the hardest composer to pin down because he worked across a vast range of styles - Villa-Lobos is the only other one like this that I can think of.

Ornstein retired from being a concert pianist at about age 40 and devoted the rest of his life to teaching and composing. Part of the reason was his nervous disposition and dislike of pressure, another reason were his comparatively small hands.

Here's the link to a thread that I created on Ornstein a while back:

http://www.talkclassical.com/7047-leo-ornstein.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2011)

Accessibility is not a single thing, unequivocal, unchanging. It is not a characteristic of any piece, but a description of a listener's response. (Why do you think MJTTOMB put that word in scare quotes in the first place, eh?)

The only way to make accessibility a single thing is to privilege a certain portion of the audience. The question to ask is "accessible to whom?" To that privileged audience? Well, why are you privileging that audience? I find Schoenberg accessible. And Stockhausen. And Kotra. But if the privileged section of the audience doesn't find any of those people accessible, then they're not accessible.

Really?

As for Mozart and Beethoven and the like, some of their pieces were accessible to a lot of people right at first; some were not. Pretty normal, really.

And that changed over time until almost all of them were generally accessible, though if you read the _Grosse Fuge_ thread here, you'll see that even some pretty old and familiar pieces still seem inaccessible to some listeners. And that is pretty normal, too, though perhaps to be deprecated.

As is a composer's turning away from the present (or the future) towards the past. The past is all well and good. Lots of good music from then. But it's over. Now is now, for better or worse (as it were). Now is what we've got. This comment, from the Foreword to James L. McHard's _The Future of Modern Music,_ puts it well, I think: "For McHard, any type of "post" music is decadent; a "post" music being one that looks back to previous eras, attempting to recover the lost listening satisfactions embodied in those beloved older musics by imitation, parodying, or collaging them. This may be due to nostalgia on the part of the composer, or possibly, in some cases, a cynical attempt to pander to the public's nostalgia."

I would only add to that that the "listening satisfactions" and the "beloved" both are not necessarily contemporaneous with the older music when the older music was new. Music becomes familiar over time and radical, crowd annoyers have this annoying habit of becoming tomorrow's peaceful, comfortable, beloved crowd pleasers. The sense we now have of Romantic music, for instance, being beautiful and pleasant is largely owing to that hideous and off-putting noise becoming familiar, often through the persistent and dedicated efforts of its few contemporary supporters. (Think Beethoven's music and Hector Berlioz, who almost single-handedly convinced listeners outside Germany that this was fine, strong, worthwhile music--especially the later, less accessible (!) stuff.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

MJTTOMB said:


> Another fantastic Ornstein piece, the Wild Men's Dance ...


General question on music like this: how do you tell if this was very well or very badly performed? Is it more insulated to bad performance because it's not about being _pianissimo_ as if the angry old man was yelling about something? Please educate a simpleton like me.


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> General question on music like this: how do you tell if this was very well or very badly performed? Is it more insulated to bad performance because it's not about being _pianissimo_ as if the angry old man was yelling about something? Please educate a simpleton like me.


It's just a matter of personal enjoyment. I ask myself how well I think the performer accomplished what it seems the composer intended for the music to say.

I don't understand why everyone is taking such offense at such a simple statement of personal opinion. If modern music is not your cup of tea, that's perfectly fine with me, but please don't put words in my mouth, implying that I think you're "simpletons" or that I think accessible music is bad. Neither one of those statements is even remotely true.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

MJTTOMB said:


> It's just a matter of personal enjoyment. I ask myself how well I think the performer accomplished what it seems the composer intended for the music to say.
> 
> I don't understand why everyone is taking such offense at such a simple statement of personal opinion. If modern music is not your cup of tea, that's perfectly fine with me, but please don't put words in my mouth, implying that I think you're "simpletons" or that I think accessible music is bad. Neither one of those statements is even remotely true.


Do accept my apology if my words did not come through quite the polite way. I didn't mean anything personal regarding your taste etc. I often enjoy reading your posts.

Not directed at you personally or anyone else, I have always been curious as to how contemporary music, especially that of the more "bizzare" sounding types can be critically assessed when it comes to performance quality. The old stuff can be mercilessly critiqued when performed in a concert and issued in a recording but I often don't seem to find that level of assessment with contemporary music. Curious.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I've heard some of his music and, like in this piece MJORPGM posted, I'm quickly tired with his harmony. I know that these roaring, low, short-interval chords sound cool and modern and original and can be exciting but how long? It's cheap. Everyone can bang low cluster and say "hey, that's great modern chord, that's how you use timbral possibilities of piano". Not saying that Ornstein is bad composer but such tricks don't work for me, if someone thinks that it's modern equivalent of harmonic genious of likes of Chopin I'll be glad to **** on his head THANK YOU


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I love contemporary music*

and I like Schönberg a lot...and I have to say about this composer that his last compositions were quite simple and not dodecaphonic...BUT not good either...(his choral compositions are reallyt bad).

Let's say:

you have music simple and good 
you have music complicated and good
you also have just bad music (and I don't analize anything else)

I'm not an expert, maybe you are. This is just my humble opinion.

The CD I bought is played by Hamelin, a Quebequer like the place I live....

Martin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Having read this thread yesterday, I dug out the Naxos disc of Ornstein played by Janice Weber (which I mentioned above) to give it a couple of listens. Apart from the rather obvious use of tone clusters in many of his pieces, I can also detect a certain romantic melancholy and poetry reminiscent of Chopin, but also a willingness to let tonality just hang around and be quite unresolved, like Debussy. The two piano sonatas on the disc (numbers 4 and 7 - not 8 as I had wrongly remembered) are also based on the exploration of a single set of themes. The Tarantelle of 1960 has an ending that would not be out of place in the music of Elliot Carter.

What I can basically detect in his music is Ornstein's knowledge of the piano literature and various styles, from the c20th and before. This is not surprising, as in his pianist days he introduced much of the piano music of his contemporaries - Schoenberg, Bartok, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc. - for the first time to audiences in the USA. Despite not being that well known today, his music having recently been kind of revived, the notes say that he "was considered to be on of the foremost composers in the early part of the twentieth century." Even people who have heard Weber's or Hamelin's discs have only heard a small portion of his piano music, of which there are apparently 13 volumes. Most of his output is thus not available on disc, his time in the sun has yet to come...


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*advantages*

Well...the advantage of this composer is that he lived so long...that he could make many experiments and "know" many composers....LOL

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Question of $*

Attracted by the price I bought the Naxos CD....I have already bought the Hamelin with the airplane...I like his music...I wouldn't say I'll become a fan right now, but it is different for me. I listened to some samples on amazon.com and it was quite nice...and VERY affordable (not even 4 bucks).

Martin


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

MJTTOMB said:


> Another fantastic Ornstein piece, the Wild Men's Dance:
> .


Totally enjoyed that. I'm not that much into the avant-garde/contemp scene, but this a piece which clearly displays craftmanship in terms of rythm and form.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*sensemaya*

One of the master pieces of the XXth century...by a Mexican guy unknown in North America.

Sensemaya or how to kill a snake:






it is a programmatic work following th epoem written by the Cuban poet Nicolas Guillén.

PLEASE LISTEN TO IT!!!!! AND GIVE ME SOME NEWS.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Accessibility is not a single thing, unequivocal, unchanging. It is not a characteristic of any piece, but a description of a listener's response. (Why do you think MJTTOMB put that word in scare quotes in the first place, eh?)

The only way to make accessibility a single thing is to privilege a certain portion of the audience. The question to ask is "accessible to whom?" To that privileged audience? Well, why are you privileging that audience? I find Schoenberg accessible. And Stockhausen. And Kotra. But if the privileged section of the audience doesn't find any of those people accessible, then they're not accessible.

Really?

Yes, really. A work of art is not "accessible" because a single listener likes it or "gets" it... or pretends to like it or get it in order to impress others with his superior grasp of the latest thing. And it would seem that within the arts there has always been more than a little posturing going on where one group brags that they "get" this or that work of art that is acknowledged as challenging to a vast majority and feign incomprehension at why other lesser beings don't get it. Such has long been a measure of being 'with it" or part of the right clique. "My God! How could she wear those shoes in public? They're so last year!" It would seem obvious that some works of art are recognized as inaccessible... or extremely challenging... because of their complexity. Others are recognized as such because they take a form that is unrecognizable... that pushes the accepted boundaries of that art... they are surprising... or "new". It would also seem logical to recognize that neither complexity nor inaccessibility/newness is a guarantee of artistic merit.

As for Mozart and Beethoven and the like, some of their pieces were accessible to a lot of people right at first; some were not. Pretty normal, really.

And that changed over time until almost all of them were generally accessible, though if you read the Grosse Fuge thread here, you'll see that even some pretty old and familiar pieces still seem inaccessible to some listeners. And that is pretty normal, too, though perhaps to be deprecated.

Mozart and Beethoven, as all artists, pushed the boundaries of a given musical language... but the results seldom pushed to a point where a great majority of the audience could not appreciate... or even recognize the results as music. The audience rapidly caught up. There have been innovations in music in the last 100 years with which the larger audience has yet to catch up with. You can take the relativist approach and suggest that the fault lies solely with the audience, or you can take the realistic view and recognize that this might just be because some of this music is inaccessible... challenging to such an extent that a great majority don't find it worth the effort... don't find that their effort is appropriately rewarded in terms of pleasure afforded... and some of this music might just actually be (dare I say it?) BAD.

Now all of this doesn't affect us as individuals. If someone gleans a great deal of pleasure from Black Sabbath or the latest electronic bleeps, squawks, clangs, clatter, and other caterwauling... more power to them. However, to suggest that its all the listener's fault if others don't share these passions, is ingenuous at best. I recognize that most people will never share my love for Gesualdo, Renaissance madrigals, Middle-eastern music, American bluegrass, and even opera. Not all art is for all people. The audience that a Renaissance madrigal was intended for is not the same as the audience that Elmore James played for... and the individual must decide whether a body of art is for them or not.

As is a composer's turning away from the present (or the future) towards the past. The past is all well and good. Lots of good music from then. But it's over. Now is now, for better or worse (as it were). Now is what we've got. This comment, from the Foreword to James L. McHard's The Future of Modern Music, puts it well, I think: "For McHard, any type of "post" music is decadent; a "post" music being one that looks back to previous eras, attempting to recover the lost listening satisfactions embodied in those beloved older musics by imitation, parodying, or collaging them. This may be due to nostalgia on the part of the composer, or possibly, in some cases, a cynical attempt to pander to the public's nostalgia."

The pretension here, contrary to the above rejection of a "privileged portion of the audience", is that there is that a privileged portion of the audience and of the composers who hold the key as to what music from the present is best... what is relevant, and what is irrelevant. Yet has this played out over the course of history? Most would agree today that J.S. Bach is far more important within musical history and a far greater composer than his son, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach... and yet by late in the elder Bach's career, the younger Bach was already seen as being far more innovative... pointing the way toward the classical movement... to such a point that old J.S. Bach's music was almost forgotten shortly after his death. How could the privileged portion of the audience of that time have been so wrong?

Entire art movements have evolved in response to the achievements of the past and in rejection of the art of the present... to such an extent that one might almost suggest that the rejection of the latest artistic directions and the revival or rediscover of past... sometimes long post art is as important to artistic evolution as building upon the new. The Neo-Classicism of J.L. David and Ingres involved a rejection of the art of the present (the Rococo) and building upon the art of the past: the Renaissance, as well as the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Baroque in the visual arts grew out of Caravaggio's return to Renaissance ideas of naturalism and rejection of the extreme distortions and artifice of Mannerism. The music of Giacinto Scelsi, John Tavener, and a good many of the Minimalists owes much to the rejection of atonalism and the exploration of older... often far older (and even non-Western) music.

If a composer today rejects what he or she imagines as the extreme mannerism of certain directions of the avant-gard... of the music of the present... are we to assume that he or she is little more than a reactionary... pandering to the audience? And even if a composer does write to a certain portion of the audience (and surely we assume that Mozart and Bellini and Rossini wrote with a certain audience in mind) what is different in this from the composer who intentionally composes in a manner that many find "difficult"... "inaccessible"... "provocative"... Is he or she simply not writing for ("pandering to") a different (privileged) segment of the audience?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... challenging to such an extent that a great majority don't find it worth the effort... don't find that their effort is appropriately rewarded in terms of pleasure afforded... and some of this music might just actually be (dare I say it?) BAD.


I would say "crap". 

When Handel's _The Messiah_ was premiered in London (although the work's premiere was in Dublin in 1742), it was only coolly received, as London audiences were highly suspicious of a subject as religiously sublime as _The Messiah_ should be performed in a _theatre_. As prejudice and as conservative as those audiences were (perhaps no different to some of us today with regards to weird electronic fart genres), they quickly came around within several years and certainly by the time of the composer's death, it was a standard Lenton season favourite. And the fact that the music is as relevant to us today (whether or not the listener is religious), could safely be correct to think that it is indeed accessible.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I guess*

Nobody listened to my Sensemaya...I also guess I'm here in order to learn but some people are here just in order to demonstrate they're right. Just stubborness...

I am a bit sad and disappointed about that.

Martin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In terms of the contrast between Ornstein's more accessible and complex works, there is an interesting discussion on this in the Naxos disc's liner notes, written by a descendant of the composer, Severo M. Ornstein. He says that a possible reason for Ornstein's withdrawal from the music scene early on was the public and critics not being used to the sheer difference between his various creations:



> ...Perhaps a more fundamental explanation for his withdrawal lies in his ambivalent relationship to the music world. His own compositions, despite their novelty, were utterly without guile. He was no doubt therefore stung when some of his more lyrical compositions provoked accusations of "backsliding" from critics. I think he concluded that few listeners really understood the music he was presenting - that it was principally its shocking novelty that was attracting attention, rather than its underlying musical value. Irrevocably labeled as a radical, he now found himself unwilling to bend to the demands of his public image, and so, around 1930, together with his wife, the former Pauline Mallet-Prevost, he established the Ornstein School of Music in Philadelphia where they taught quietly until their retirement in the mid-1950's. Thereafter he devoted his time entirely to composing, but never again sought to publicize his work...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> In terms of the contrast between Ornstein's more accessible and complex works, there is an interesting discussion on this in the Naxos disc's liner notes, written by a descendant of the composer, Severo M. Ornstein. He says that a possible reason for Ornstein's withdrawal from the music scene early on was the public and critics not being used to the sheer difference between his various creations:


Are you referring to this CD? I read your thoughts about the pieces in the _Current Listening_ thread. I might get a copy and give it a try.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

One of the master pieces of the XXth century...by a Mexican guy unknown in North America.

I wouldn't say that Revueltas was completely unknown in musical circles... although as with many of the finest Latin-American composers, he is certainly less-well-known than he should be. We had a member some while back who was passionate about Latin-American classics and introduced any number of these composers here. I have this recording myself:










Sensemaya is a strong piece.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Are you referring to this CD? I read your thoughts about the pieces in the _Current Listening_ thread. I might get a copy and give it a try.


Yes, I've got that one. This is a good place to start with Ornstein, as well as Hamelin's disc, which I plan to get at some stage. Janice Weber's interpretations are said to be more impressionistic and less aggressive than Hamelin's, but I dare say that owning both these excellent discs can help the listener grasp the many facets of this fascinating and unique composer/pianist...


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Andre said:


> Yes, I've got that one. This is a good place to start with Ornstein, as well as Hamelin's disc, which I plan to get at some stage. Janice Weber's interpretations are said to be more impressionistic and less aggressive than Hamelin's, but I dare say that owning both these excellent discs can help the listener grasp the many facets of this fascinating and unique composer/pianist...


I have only heard of Ornstein because he was so old, but today I followed your advice and started with that Weber disc. Very enjoyable! I really like that impressionist/modernist mix. I will definitely put him on my exploration list.

Thank god there are people in this forum who can see through his "tricks", though. Otherwise we could all be lured to like him. 



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart and Beethoven, as all artists, pushed the boundaries of a given musical language... but the results seldom pushed to a point where a great majority of the audience could not appreciate... or even recognize the results as music. The audience rapidly caught up. There have been innovations in music in the last 100 years with which the larger audience has yet to catch up with. You can take the relativist approach and suggest that the fault lies solely with the audience, or you can take the realistic view and recognize that this might just be because some of this music is inaccessible... challenging to such an extent that a great majority don't find it worth the effort... don't find that their effort is appropriately rewarded in terms of pleasure afforded... and some of this music might just actually be (dare I say it?) BAD.


But with the same logic, couldn't you say that the reason that most people don't listen to classical music at all, is that there is something wrong with classical music? It is not accessible enough, and some of it is actually bad...

And since it would be logical that "non-classical" people are more likely to have been exposed to classical music that is often played than classical music that is seldom played, wouldn't then the "bad" music they have heard more likely be Beethoven than Carter?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I am jealous*

I would like to put some pictures as you do...How can I?

Bravo for the Revueltas CD. I have a lot of CDs by him.

I love Sensemaya and the poem by Guillén...My mother tongue is Spanish then I can read it in Spanish while playing the music. It is exciting!

_La Noche de los Mayas _is an important work too... and longer than Sensemaya.

The Mayas was the civilization before the Aztecs in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Sonatas*

I've just bought his Naxos CD

Sonatas no. 4 and 7 and more










Good surprise by Naxos!!! Martin, sometimes you are wrong.

Martin


----------

