Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
Grisha blows their minds in Texas
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Arash
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
|
 RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to rombsix)
|
|
|
Thanks for posting, Congrats Grisha!!
quote:
ORIGINAL: rombsix
"I’m looking forward to hearing his playing after he gets his heart broken a few more times..."
I was going to quote the same sentence as i saw your post lol
Yeah, as we all know, flamenco is all about suffering, pain, broken hearts, etc..
The more you suffer, the better and authentic you are.
If you are happy and no problems, then you simply suck (maybe in Alegrias and Rumba you won't suck that much but other than that..)
Paco suffered more than any other gypsy guitarist for sure and his heart was broken a million times.
I have an idea (as an additional guitar practicing method):
let's fall in love 12 times / year and get your heart broken each month, and if the lady doesn't want to break your heart, force her to do that.
---
Anyway, the problem is: i don't think Grisha would change anything, even if his heart would break few more times!!!! 
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 27 2010 12:06:28
 |
|
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
quote:
quote:
Hence the same critical peril, of misperceiving his flawless performance as emotionless.
That was the kind of comment you get from a "critic" who wouldn't know Soleares from "O Sole Mio."
I like how you juxtaposed Solea to O’Sole Mio (as distant as two forms can be, yet sharing that syllable “sole”). But I disagree with your comment.
I do not believe the issue is about knowledge (or the lack thereof) of flamenco. While audience would benefit vastly form appreciating the history, culture and structure of every style, a hold dear the hope that when performed with passion and artistry music need not be explained to arouse our emotions. In fact, when I first heard Vicente Amigo I could not spell flamenco without the long-legged bird’s name in the way, yet his music and way of playing hypnotized me to the point I am now an eagerly active member of his ForoFlamenco.
I love how Kyung-wha Chung plays Beethoven, but regret the $19 I spent on her ‘Vivaldi’s Four Seasons”. Sometimes it is not necessarily whether the audience appreciates a particular style, but whether the artist, albeit a perfect interpreter, understands the language and message of what is presenting.
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 27 2010 15:43:43
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14848
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
Regardless of one's knowledge or even tastes, an individual can be moved or not moved by a performance. There is no one and only view about it. Plenty of flamenco aficionados have criticized virtuoso solistas for being "cold" performers throughout history. Same goes for baile and even cante sometimes. Take two audience members of any master, and you might get two completely different interpretations about the performance. Such is the world of art critics, and EVERYONE is one. In fact, most reviews simply reveal more about the mood and knowledge of the CRITIC then the performer, unless it is a purely technical review.
Since i was young, the guitarists that have moved me the most, (be it rock, jazz, flamenco or classical), the ones that really terrified me and likewise touched my heart and artistic sensibilities, have ALL been criticized of cold mechanical technique at some point.
If the same ever happens to me, I will be quite proud of myself in this regard.
And....Congrats Grisha!!
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 27 2010 17:39:36
|
|
Ramon Amira
Posts: 1025
Joined: Oct. 14 2009
From: New York City
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Kate)
|
|
|
quote:
Plenty of flamenco aficionados have criticized virtuoso solistas for being "cold" performers throughout history.
Yes, I agree with you. That's quite true. But the operative word there is "aficionados." An aficionado, being someone with an understanding of flamenco, renders his opinion based on that knowledge and understanding of flamenco. So if an aficionado finds a player's performance "cold," you or I or anyone else might not necessarily agree with him, but he is at least rendering his opinion from a basis of understanding what he is listening to. Now take the opinion of someone who doesn't know the first thing about flamenco. As you say, he may like the music, may not like the music, may find the performance sensational, may find it cold, but he is in no position to say that Grisha is not playing with enough feeling, because he is hearing the music from a totally different perspective, one that is unrelated to flamenco. In flamenco, feeling is expressed by the artist through the individual palos – how he plays them, how his playing reveals and evokes the palo, how a palo moves us – to sorrow, joy, etc. Someone who doesn't even know what palo is being played, let alone the essence of the palo, can't understand the feeling that the player is expressing through that palo, he can only say that he likes it, doesn't like it, etc. from a general sense of how he hears it. I was once reviewing a performance by Pepe Romero where two people sitting next to me were talking about how they were now going to hear "Flamingo" for the first time. An extremely knowledgeable aficionado was sitting with me as my guest. At one point Pepe played an incredibly moving Siguiriyas. When it was over my friend and I looked at each other like "wow." Then we heard one of those two people on my other side say something to the effect that "that was boring." Well, as you say, everyone's a critic, so they're entitled to their opinion, but my friend just looked at me and shook his head slowly as though to say, "What can you say – this guy doesn't have the slightest idea of what he just heard."
_____________________________
Classical and flamenco guitars from Spain Ramon Amira Guitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 27 2010 20:31:42
|
|
Arash
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
One point which we forget is, who reads this article ?
Just Flamenco experts or mostly average people in texas who don't have a clue what rasgueados is, but know what "sweeping across the string" could mean ?
I guess the latter, and for those people , it was not a bad job from the critic.
If i wouldn't have a clue about flamenco, this critic and article would motivate me to see the next show of Grisha in texas or elsewhere more than a super-duper technical critic from Prominent Critic, from which i don't understand a single word.
Even if i would know something about flamenco, but wouldn't know Grisha, it would motivate me either. all in all , it was positive. just look at the title.
So for Grisha, such review means : maybe more people watch the next show, more audience,,,,,etc.
Sometimes we have to come out of our little world and look at things from another perspective.
The only thing, i didn't like was this "come back after your heart is broken" thing, which also Norman mentioned and which i mentioned too with my joke.
A little "arrogant" imo, but still not a catastrophy.
Maybe Michael's own heart was broken the day he wrote the article or something.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 28 2010 17:14:14
|
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Kate)
|
|
|
The review is 100% Ok. The author does not claim to be a flamenco expert, and he doesnt have to comment on the interpretation of the palos anyway to tell if he liked the performance or not. He can comment on other things and did accordingly (cleanness of playing, feeling).
Most importantly, reviews are not important (only to get good advertisement) because nobody will change his opinion of an artist or performance because of a good/bad review. Reviews are there to give people a direction, to get a hint on what to expect. Like when you want to pick a movie and the short summary on the back cover tells something from the story. It gives you an outlook whats the topic of the film so that you can decide easier if it may please your expectations. From that point this critic here was highly positive about Grishas performance, and it is his choice to say about his playing what he wants.
The thing with the broken heart is very well written, and IMO only meant positive, as flamenco is mostly about suffering. He P R A I S E S the ability of guitarrists and singers to pour out their souls in a performance, so the phrase about getting his heart broken is meant positive, in context with a performance, even though it is of course cynical to want somebody to suffer.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 28 2010 17:34:14
|
|
Ramon Amira
Posts: 1025
Joined: Oct. 14 2009
From: New York City
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Kate)
|
|
|
It has to be asked – what is the purpose of a review in the first place. Historically the purpose was so that before people spend both their time and their money to see a performance, or exhibit, etc., they could be given an idea of whether or not it is worth spending their time and money, and also to give the general public a comprehensive sense of an artist's talent. And for centuries, in every civilized country, a critic with expertise on the particular art is sent to give his or her expert opinion. If all that the editor wanted was just any old opinion, he could have picked any one of the first hundred people in the telephone directory, or better yet, just grabbed the first person he sees off the street, and send him to do the review. But that is not – and never has been – what is done. A critic reviewing a pianist is almost always an accomplished pianist himself, who has the knowledge and expertise of both piano technique and piano repertoire to enable him or her to make a critical judgment based on something more than merely whether he "likes it" or "doesn't like it." Pianists have "flying fingers" also, but I have never read a review of a pianist that used such a generic term in place of a specific comment on technique. Nor have I ever read any review of any instrumentalist where the critic did not discuss the artist's interpretation of specific pieces that had been played.
An art critic sent to review an exhibit of paintings is invariably someone with training in painting, and frequently in art history as well, and can comment on the various aspects of the paintings – brushwork, composition, perspective, color, etc. The editor would not send me to review an exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, any more than he would send the average person on the street, because neither of us has any expertise in art. If he did send me, all I could do would be to look at the paintings and say in some vague general sense that "Well, I kind of like that one," or "I'm not too wild about that one," etc. That's not a review, any more than someone talking about "flying fingers" without ever even discussing the actual palos, and how well Grisha revealed the essence each individual palo, or any specific aspects of his technique, constitutes a review. It is clear that if Michael May is not a flamenco aficionado, than his opinion of Grisha's playing, including his ridiculous assessment to the effect that Grisha is not quite ready yet, is exactly the same in every respect as grabbing the first person you find off the street to go listen to Grisha and tell us what kind of flamenco guitarist he thinks Grisha is.
_____________________________
Classical and flamenco guitars from Spain Ramon Amira Guitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 28 2010 23:11:18
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
quote:
It is clear that if Michael May is not a flamenco aficionado, than his opinion of Grisha's playing, including his ridiculous assessment to the effect that Grisha is not quite ready yet, is exactly the same in every respect as grabbing the first person you find off the street to go listen to Grisha and tell us what kind of flamenco guitarist he thinks Grisha is.
As has been noted by others, a critic reviewing a performance for an Austin, Texas newspaper is writing for a general readership. He is not, REPEAT NOT, writing for a small audience of flamenco aficionados who already know about the history and development of flamenco, the various palos, etc. If he were to go into to great detail, he would lose his readership.
And to state that Michael May's assessment of Grisha's playing "is exactly the same in every respect as grabbing the first person you find off the street to go listen to Grisha and tell us what kind of flamenco guitarist he thinks Grisha is" reveals an unwarranted assumption that Mr. May knows nothing about flamenco. Perhaps he is not as well-versed as some, perhaps he is, but no evidence has been produced to equate him with "grabbing the first person off the street" to render an assessment of Grisha's playing, or anyone else's.
There is, in fact, room for different opinions regarding flamenco, jazz, classical, or any other genre of music. To assume that because one disagrees with a critic's assessment, the critic does not know enough to make an assessment, reveals more about the person making the assumption than it does about the critic.
Cheers,
Bill
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 29 2010 0:22:42
|
|
Ramon Amira
Posts: 1025
Joined: Oct. 14 2009
From: New York City
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Kate)
|
|
|
I stand by my previous statement that there is nothing in Michael May's review to indicate that he is a flamenco aficionado. There is little in life about which we can state things "categorically," as you demand. It's reasonable, lacking omniscience, to apply what has been called a "preponderance of evidence." I previously cited my reasons why I feel he is not versed in flamenco.
And I would point out that I did not "disagree with Michael May's assessment," for the simple reason that he did not make any assessment worthy of the name – as I said, he merely tossed out a few clichés with no insight or commentary on Grisha's playing of the actual palos. Now if he had actually made a genuine assessment, I would not have even commented in the first place. The whole point of my original post was that he had written a review that in no way commented specifically on anything Grisha played. And a critic writing a proper and genuine review wherein he assesses the performer's interpretation as well as technique is not "writing for a small audience of flamenco aficionados who already know about the history and development of flamenco, the various palos, etc." He is paid to give his professional and expert opinion on all specific aspects of the performance, without making any assumptions on the composition of the readership, one way or the other.
Cheers –
Ramon
_____________________________
Classical and flamenco guitars from Spain Ramon Amira Guitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 29 2010 1:03:20
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
|
RE: Grisha blows their minds in Texas (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
quote:
It has to be asked – what is the purpose of a review in the first place. Historically the purpose was so that before people spend both their time and their money to see a performance, or exhibit, etc., they could be given an idea of whether or not it is worth spending their time and money, and also to give the general public a comprehensive sense of an artist's talent. And for centuries, in every civilized country, a critic with expertise on the particular art is sent to give his or her expert opinion. If all that the editor wanted was just any old opinion, he could have picked any one of the first hundred people in the telephone directory, or better yet, just grabbed the first person he sees off the street, and send him to do the review. But that is not – and never has been – what is done. A critic reviewing a pianist is almost always an accomplished pianist himself, who has the knowledge and expertise of both piano technique and piano repertoire to enable him or her to make a critical judgment based on something more than merely whether he "likes it" or "doesn't like it." Pianists have "flying fingers" also, but I have never read a review of a pianist that used such a generic term in place of a specific comment on technique. Nor have I ever read any review of any instrumentalist where the critic did not discuss the artist's interpretation of specific pieces that had been played.
An art critic sent to review an exhibit of paintings is invariably someone with training in painting, and frequently in art history as well, and can comment on the various aspects of the paintings – brushwork, composition, perspective, color, etc. The editor would not send me to review an exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, any more than he would send the average person on the street, because neither of us has any expertise in art. If he did send me, all I could do would be to look at the paintings and say in some vague general sense that "Well, I kind of like that one," or "I'm not too wild about that one," etc. That's not a review, any more than someone talking about "flying fingers" without ever even discussing the actual palos, and how well Grisha revealed the essence each individual palo, or any specific aspects of his technique, constitutes a review. It is clear that if Michael May is not a flamenco aficionado, than his opinion of Grisha's playing, including his ridiculous assessment to the effect that Grisha is not quite ready yet, is exactly the same in every respect as grabbing the first person you find off the street to go listen to Grisha and tell us what kind of flamenco guitarist he thinks Grisha is.
In regard to critics I can only say I wouldn't trust editors to know enough to pick well educated critics, or really, critics with independent artistic sensibilities. It's easy to learn enough about a subject to parrot what you read or the opinions that pass for the standard. That doesn't make a good critic though, in fact it makes the worst type, the one who is always three steps behind whats going on and therefore doesn't understand it and doesn't like it. There is a great book called the History of Musical Invective. It contains a few hundred years worth of reviews of major composers works, from Beethoven to Schoenberg. What it shows is how creative critics are at saying something sucks. These guys all aced creative writing thats for sure.
A friend was at a Sabicas concert in the early 80's and happened to notice the critic from the NY Times a few seats away. He watched the guy through out the concert. Sabicas was in top form, played an magical, inspired concert and this guy looks bored to tears. Then at the beginning of the segurias, Sabicas does the snare drum effect thing and this guy jumps out of his seat. The review was glowing.
In terms of this review of Grisha I think the reviewer was just trying to make himself sound more discerning than he is. It's a pretty obvious attempt considering how blown away he apparently was. Dennis Koster told me recently that he heard Grisha's recording of Sabicas' material and said it blew his mind, so you know I don't think less of the critic in Austin for simply saying the concert rocked his world.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 29 2010 2:00:01
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
