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.
|
|
|
CATEGORIES OF FLAMENCO GUITARS
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
estebanana
Posts: 9354
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
 RE: CATEGORIES OF FLAMENCO GUITARS (in reply to GaryNLA)
|
|
|
Well there are Conde's and everything else.
( "That's joke son!" Foghorn Leghorn)
There are Cypress and there are Rosewood guitars- up until recent times there were more interchangable, now the perception is that they are two distinct categories. Blanca and Negra. Most everything else falls into those two main headings.
Then there are guitars that are somewhat more suited to group work because they have a way of cutting through that allows them to punctuate accents and compete sonically with dancers, and singers and percussion. Both Negras and Blancas will do this on a guitar by guitar basis.
It's really dependent on what your musical goal or use is. And at the end of the day even a guitar not totally suited to accompaniment will accompany, but having a tool that can cut through when needed just makes the work easier. Any guitar that reasonably allows you to do smooth alza pua, and has a good rasgueado sound, and a reasonable saddle height will play flamenco.
Other than that, are there really categories?
I read that scale length thread. Scale in the market place is subject to trends. Long and short scales go in and out of fashion. Shorter scales work on flamenco guitars, but for me longer scales work consistently better and offer some advantages, but if you put three or four guitar makers together they won't agree on any of that. I say who cares, it's again really a guitar by guitar subject. Some have short scales and work great others have long scales and work great.
Arguments, disagreements and opinions between luthiers about scale, bracing, and dark vs. light wood are difficult discussions to evaluate. Each maker has personal experience and bias, and a preferred way of building. And what they defend one day they will often recant the next day or next year if it means winning a customer away from another guy! Makers will also take one guys explanation that they disagree with one day, and re-present the same argument later in their own words, but it will be the same basic viewpoint. Which indicates there are universal basics that all the good makers recognize, but begrudge the other guys from having. That's just guitar makers venting spleen. The lamest is when someone starts building and all of a sudden after two guitars they have all the answers, it's not because they know, it's because they regurgitate what someone else has written. Take the long view, average it out; most guitar makers agree on certain fundamentals and you have to look at posts about categorical things with an eye towards the things they talk about that are agreements. They might not say it the same way.
Some makers swear that rosewood and cypress don't make that big a difference and that back& sides wood is not a big factor in sound. Others will say it is a profound difference. That particular argument gives me a headache so I never enter that one. Really any structurally appropriate wood will make a good flamenco guitar if thinned properly. What it will sound like is largely dependent on the other choices the maker includes in the work. One could make a nice flamenco guitar with White Oak or Pine, but almost invariably the dialog will begin centered around the wood being a strange choice, and not the sound of the guitar.
It's the same in the classical scene, I just showed a Port Orford Cedar back & sides guitar to a dealer, *BLANK STARE* no recognition of that wood on their classical horizon. Which makes me think that categories are largely elaborate mental constructs that each person creates, and only limit what is and is not suitable for actual play.
But in general you got blancas and negras, but it's not that easy. It's really like "50 Shades of Rosewood".
A good starting point is R. E. Brune's article, it should answer many questions and bring up a few more. When I said the blanca and the negra used to be more inter-changeble I had this in mind:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/107878546/The-Cultural-Origins-Of-The-Modern-Guitar-by-R-E-Brune#scribd
It's also been posted on Foro, but it easier to download form the above source: http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=168269&appid=&p=&mpage=1&key=&tmode=&smode=&s=#168269
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 12 2015 1:10:20
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: CATEGORIES OF FLAMENCO GUITARS (in reply to GaryNLA)
|
|
|
One category of flamenco guitar is the place (which determined the style) of construction: broadly speaking, "Madrid" vs. "Granada." This is a category that used to have meaning, but it may have little (or no) meaning today. In the past, there were intense discussions and debates over the pros and cons of each. Our luthiers on the Foro probably can address this better than I, but my sense is that "Madrid" vs. "Granada" no longer has the clear distinction that it once had.
Madrid flamenco guitars tended to be bigger in both size and sound, with a stronger mid-range. Examples of the Madrid "school" are Conde Hermanos and Ramirez. Granada guitars, on the other hand, tended to be a bit smaller with less projection, but raspy with ringing trebles. Examples of the Granada "school" are Antonio Raya Pardo and the Bellidos.
No doubt there were always exceptions to the above, and again, the distinctions may no longer hold as valid categories.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 12 2015 12:18:47
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14825
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: CATEGORIES OF FLAMENCO GUITARS (in reply to machopicasso)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: machopicasso
quote:
It's the same in the classical scene, I just showed a Port Orford Cedar back & sides guitar to a dealer, *BLANK STARE* no recognition of that wood on their classical horizon.
Curiously, how extensively has Port Orford Cedar been used to make flamenco guitars?
It is important to note it has two names, the other being LAWSON CYPRESS....and indeed it is a "cypress" and hence flamenco players would call these guitars "blancas" for good reason....and hence the blank stares of a classical guy who recognizes "blancas" as "non rosewood ie, non classical" guitars.
The problem with this wood is that it can be highly figured (more like maple) or quite plain (like cypress from mediterranean), depending on how it is cut. Not clear to me why that is. In terms of how extensively it is used for flamenco, i would compare it to alternatives such as maple or koa, etc. In terms of sound, it is pretty much just like cypress.
As to the original question, I put flamenco guitars into 3 categories...the good, the bad, and the ugly. 
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 12 2015 20:16:54
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9354
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: CATEGORIES OF FLAMENCO GUITARS (in reply to Dudnote)
|
|
|
quote:
So the Japanese have taken building screendoors to new levels. In Chinese shouji （手機）is a mobile phone (literally "hand machine"), where as jita (吉他）is a guitar, but 手他 is not a ukeleli (even though it should be). It's curious, nothing in this world is black and white when you learn to appreciate nuances. Whilst on (or completely off - it's hard to tell) the topic, Chinese classification does not distinguish between insects or worms, anything small and revolting (to some, beautiful to others) is 虫 (chong), apparantly the Eskimos have over 20 words for snow, and the most beautiful woman in the world has two forms - Shoji Sayaka and Estrella Morente. But it's all very subjective.
I looked her up, Shoji is her family name, so in Japanese fashion they list her as Shoji Sakaya, but in her website she is presented in western fashion with her given name first. So her name is Sakaya, and her last name is Shoji. But it can still be a different kanji than the one that means screen.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2015 4:23:58
|
|
 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 |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
