Ernesto Wow, you did it!  Sounds great. The merging is seamless.

Is that the "Le Support" you're using?  I also have one at the suggestion of Blaise.

Barney thak you! It is le support. Got it a few weeks back and had to adjust my right hand position. It went to play always very metallic. But now I feel better with a sweeter sound. 

Ernesto Yes,  you're sound is warm and sweet.  Beautiful!  I like the Le Support best, as it provides more stability than the others.

Ron thank you! The comments do help a lot!

Ernesto 😄 well done. 👍

Eric Phillips thanks Eric! and thanks for listening! Also tempo, I'd say... many times the pieces are underestimated regarding their tempo possibilities... for example, in this study, I take the tempo indications but for the whole bar, instead of the 4ter note. It's a 3/4 bar measure but I actually think it's in one, (to keep the Andante indication). 

Ariel Elijovich I enjoyed your performance here, Ariel, although I disagree with your idea that by applying modern principles of performance to older music we are taking it 'up a notch'. I would suggest that we are simply doing it differently. In my opinion, there is nothing 'deficient' in Sor's little study that requires it to be performed differently than he himself intended. And while we cannot say with any confidence how Sor would have played it, I think it fair to say he would not have taken your approach to fingering. (On the other hand, he might well have agreed with you about tempo!) So, for me, a historically informed approach to Sor (like Patrik Kleemola's) is as valid your own modern approach. Both can be successful. Equally, both can be unsuccessful - it depends on the performer! I think your criticism of Patrik's video of op.44/1 (above) is warranted - but it is a comment upon a particular performance, and not a particular approach. Patrik might have interpreted the music quite differently, while still being 'historical'. 

David Krupka oh, David... but my approach is not at all a modern perspective... I am just pointing out all the common uses applied since long ago to Mozart's and Beethoven's pieces. Each period has a particular field of development for expression. Barroque's is harmony and poliphonyc counterpoint, Romantic music is enriched harmonies, wide dynamics and tempo rubatos. Classical music's field of major expression is articulation. In reaction to Barroque music, the Classical period is one of very clear and "simple" forms, very easyly distinguished melodies with simple accompagniament and very "elegant" and poised dynamics, mostly. The richness of the period, the thing that makes the period's music so difficult and the reason that the imposed concert for Violin and Cello for entering orchestras is Mozart or Haydn is the devine richness and complexity of articulation (and clarity of sound). but this is not an idea of mine at all,... and quite old. That's why I say that playing Sor without articulations is like listening to Mozart's piano music played by an uninspired student in it's early stages. 

And, while these easy pieces might have been used by Sor to teach to very early stage students (so, very little articulation embedded in the score and easy first position fingerings, plus the complexity of the published edition already mentioned) to have a pro player like Patrik or any other performing this first piece as if it where completely devoid of articulation is a pitty. As I said before, no violinist would sightread the first etude like he does. One thing to notice is that the more complex the pieces get in the book (and the recording) the more articulation Patrik uses. My point is that easy pieces should not be spoiled of their natural articulation just because they are "easy". 

Ariel Elijovich Thanks for the detailed reply, Ariel. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by articulation, which I take to refer to the manner in which a particular note is produced (legato, detaché, staccato, and so on). If you mean something more like 'phrasing' or 'rhetoric' then I certainly agree that this is not to be ignored! By suggesting your own approach is 'modern' I am referring mostly to your left-hand fingering. I don''t believe any guitarist in Sor's time would have made such choices. My impression is that passages were almost without exception realized in the lowest possible position. I believe this was simply the continuation of a long tradition of performance in the plucked instrument family. (One exception I can think of involves the use of campanella, which seems to have originated during the baroque era.) Again, I am not suggesting that your approach to fingering is wrong - just that it is not (in this case) historical. I am not arguing against your what I would call your 'interpretation' - as a matter of fact I like it! But I suspect you could have achieved the same result without ever leaving the first position.

David Krupka you do have some points regarding "tradition" in firgering for the period. That was also due to the possibilities of the strings and instruments of those times and to the rare professionalization of the guitar players at that time. Most of them were, with due exceptions (above all guitar composer/players) mostly students and amateurs. But that, and this you may very well call modern or personal approach, shouldn't tie us at all, expressively, I think. 

David Krupka said:
But I suspect you could have achieved the same result without ever leaving the first position.

 In other cases, this might be true. In this specific case of the Op. 31 n°1, I must say that producing the articulation I do, just with right hand over the "historical" LH fingerings would be a nightmare of a planting exercise!! Plus it wouldn't be possible to do all the vibrato I do on "historically" open Es and other open strings I skip for that precise matter.  

I am preparing a paper I have to present to my Conservatory on Friday but afterwards I'll look briefly into the first of the Easy pieces that Patrik recorded and record for you a rendition of my own so that we can compare! That'll be fun.