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.
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Mark2)
quote:
I was referring to those folks who think flamenco is like jazz, rock, pop, etc, in that you play this scale over that chord, which is completely misguided IMO.
Haha, also that was ME just a few years ago I responded to someone asking what scales to learn for flamenco and I said "learn the phrygian scale"
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to RobF)
quote:
Great thread, guys. I like how someone in the UK posts an aside about a book he picked up in a sale and someone on another continent goes, yeah I know him, he was my teacher! Really informative material links and enjoyable reading here. Thanks. :)
I couldn't agree more! And I was amazed at Mark2's response to my post. Perhaps I shouldn't be but I love it when things like that happen. And I want to hear more :)
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to orsonw)
quote:
ORIGINAL: orsonw
quote:
Most (all?) of cante jondo flamenco is in phrygian tonality/key, some other palos are in major or minor tonality, and the whole corpus of [guitar playing in] flamenco shows that all possible notes are used, thus, flamenco [guitar ]overall utilizes the chromatic scale. Yet a lot of flamenco is in Phrygian tonality/key.
That's what I currently understand, and as shown in your excellent Flamenco circle of 5th. Where from a western view the iii (phygian) is the key/resolution not the i. As far as I understand, western music contracted to major and minor but there are others e.g. phrygian. I include my little map that helps me interpret circle of 5th sections. I mainly use my ears, I am ignorant about theory. But I try to learn something to follow some of the erudite discussions, and it has helped me in learning to actually play and be better at listening/accompanying cante. E.g. Atypically Norman Kliman website convention calls the iii the 1 and refers from there when describing cante e.g. por arriba note E is 1 and he refers note intervals from there, names chords II-I (F-E por arriba) not iv iii.
I felt I should update you guys a little, that I have revised my thinking a bit regarding these topics and those arguments linked. Most of my thought processes of clarification were based on Baroque era practices, namely I noted Fischer (who inspired Bach’s well tempered clavier) created sets of preludes and fugues in major and minor keys, and one lonely Phrygian example. Noticing Bach did away with any such thing, or rather, Phrygian music ideas become part of the basic DOMINANT FUNCTION of the minor keys, I felt that the expanded circle of 5th most succinctly elucidates how flamenco thinking is alike but also different to western classical thinking. Please note that your 6 Roman numerals (all lowercase) represent scale degrees (or chord roots) of the MAJOR scale or key only. The relative minor necessarily shifts Roman numeral “I” from, say, C to A when it comes to defining the relative MINOR key that shares the same sharps and flats position on the circle.
With this in mind your “iii phrygian” is not really the way western music theory students are taught to think, rather, the same position chord is viewed as “V phrygian” because your vi has become the “i” of the minor key. Because the third is raised, the extra term “Dominant”, normally saved for V in major keys, is necessarily applied. So you end up with “V phrygian Dominant”. Most western classical minds travel no further, and as needed, would apply the concept of “secondary dominants” as needed. By this I mean your “iii phrygian”, if it appears as a cadence point in a Major key piece, it is not described as “iii” or even “III Major”, but rather, in context, as “V/vi”….meaning “the V dominant of vi”….regardless if it actually moves to vi or not in the next phrase. These devices can be used to tonicize any of your other Roman numerals in the key, or modulate more permanently to an entire new key, perhaps requiring a “Turning of the wheel”.
With that in mind seeing you can have I of major key =III of minor, or vi of major=i of minor, my enhanced version introduces Phrygian as a new level where iii (major)=V (minor)= I (Phrygian or “flamenco”), as a third key tonic. TONIC as a concept for Roman numeral “I” or “i” is essential for either functioning keys, OR modes. People like Norman and other flamencologists have already made this “leap” without special justification, and matter of factly apply “I” to Phrygian tonic palos. Even talking about Fandango this is done in the literature, again, a leap un-justified without explanation such as my circle plus the enhancement for Phrygian. You note that all the mixed Makkam/scales in the above linked article I was criticizing, all have E as the number 1 or root note, ie tonic. That is why I said you could add E Locrian to the mix….when in reality my point is we should not be doing this AT ALL for flamenco anyway. The reason is because all the accidentals you see relative to E tonic as if tensions heard as static or modal, is absolutely NOT how flamenco functions. We don’t run all those scales over an E chord….the accidentals appear as necessary with OTHER chords derived in the “Key”, and hence my push for “key” vs mode or scalar thinking.
Now what I have revised since that is that I realize both Bach and Fischer come from an older school of thought from the Renaissance, where you actually did have things like “Phrygian keys” and even more exotic things. They were done very differently so we have an unfair divide between the two genres, as if ZERO over lap happened. Truth is the “duel Tonicity” of Steelhead articles, and Flamenco’s “phrygian” cadential phrases (Clausula of the renaissance modes 3 and 4), are likely stubborn and persistent hangers-on from those times, that have been preserved like fossils. There where 4 modes based on D, E, F, and G, and due to musica ficta and its vague practice of application of accidentals to a “mode” via taste, rules, and training, you end up with a vague mixture of “keys” based on those notes as FINALS (rather than tonics necessarily), where D is not only dorian as it allows Bb to appear in equal amount as B naturals, C#s etc. F “lydian”, same deal, mode 5 can use B or Bb, Eb can appear, etc. So those are modes 1,3,5,7. What happens is the tessiture of the main melody might cover wider ground BELOW the final, confusing what Tonic actually should be. These are plagal modes (hypo-blabla) 2,4,6,8. So the “Dual Tonicity” that has survived is really things like pieces composed originally as mode 4 (Hypo Phrygian), or mode 8 (hypo mixolydian) for example, where you can’t for sure say what key it is in, because it sounds to modern ears like it ended on the “wrong chord”, Like Guantanamera, when actually, that was a basic rule for the piece as it was written and harmonized in those days.
So simply put, I feel that the confusion with something like flamenco or bluesy rock, Guantanamera, etc, that we STILL see being argued in modern times where responses to “what key is this in?” with “just use your ears dude”, is going to continue unless people acknowledge the likely Renaissance origins, and persistent survival of these forms THROUGH the baroque/classical music periods, co-existing with them, in more “folk” style traditions that weren’t studied academically the same way. Whether or not the original theory language of the Renaissance should be employed to explain things like “Hey Joe” (Aeolian clausula with Picardy third, repeat over and over) is open to debate, but for me at least, it clears up A LOT of stuff and makes things more cut and dry.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 1945
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to kitarist)
No worries, we all learn what we learn when we learn it. I've been playing guitar almost 50 years now, and am still learning. Sometimes I ask myself why the hell I didn't learn a particular something years ago.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kitarist
quote:
I was referring to those folks who think flamenco is like jazz, rock, pop, etc, in that you play this scale over that chord, which is completely misguided IMO.
Haha, also that was ME just a few years ago I responded to someone asking what scales to learn for flamenco and I said "learn the phrygian scale"
Posts: 1945
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to silddx)
Ok, here's another story re:Mariano
As I mentioned he gave me a lot of gigs. It started to snowball in 1988. I found myself with a week to prepare for a solo gig opening for the Gypsy Kings at the Fillmore in San Francisco. It was their first time in SF, and all the record companies and various music figures were going to be there.
I had been playing in a lounge there during breaks between acts on the main stage. During one of those gigs, I played a Sabicas picado por solea and got a standing O. I looked up, surprised because my picado has never been stellar, and there was Bill Graham talking to the booking agent and pointing right at me.
Next time I called to play in the lounge, the booking agent said no, we are going to have you be the supporting act. I was shocked-I had been studying flamenco less than five years. I bought the GK's record, listened and thought, ah it's only rumba, I can do this.
But as the day got closer I felt the nerves. I called Mariano, and I asked him to refer a dancer and singer that I could bring with me. I had almost no experience playing for dance or cante, so really I was grasping for straws.
He said "You are opening for a group so you want to bring a group?" Yes, I said. He said "But you don't have a group! You have the solos I taught you, so strap on your cajones and get out there!" I said "It's a big stage" He replied " We are bigger than all the stages in the world!"
His words helped give me the confidence to get through it. I won't say I wasn't nervous because I was. But another Mariano piece of wisdom helped-he advised that if you want to perform, you have to know the music not 100%, but 200%. Because when in front of the audience you will lose something. If you go in at 100%, you'll fail, but at 200%, if you lose 30-40% you'll still be ok.
I played close to my best at that time, and that gig led to many more great opportunities. Without Mariano, I would never have played the Fillmore, which was a place I grew up seeing my favorite bands. I would never have caught the eye of Bill Graham, or done many other things in music.
In my time with the guitar, I have studied with many players, rock, jazz, etc. Mariano was unique as a teacher. He loved to teach, and he loved his students.
quote:
ORIGINAL: silddx
quote:
Great thread, guys. I like how someone in the UK posts an aside about a book he picked up in a sale and someone on another continent goes, yeah I know him, he was my teacher! Really informative material links and enjoyable reading here. Thanks. :)
I couldn't agree more! And I was amazed at Mark2's response to my post. Perhaps I shouldn't be but I love it when things like that happen. And I want to hear more :)
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Mark2)
quote:
the booking agent said no, we are going to have you be the supporting act. I was shocked-I had been studying flamenco less than five years. I bought the GK's record, listened and thought, ah it's only rumba, I can do this.
Similar story, except I had met them before and played a little for them in the hotel lounge after their show. I was asked to open for them, and my partner who adores them and knows them personally, was too shy so we did not perform. Some years later he got them to do a cancer fundraiser after their show. Only 3 guys showed up (Canut, Andre, Patchai) and I was asked to open for them with with my wife dancing. No problem. They did not have guitars so my friends that had the rumba cover group (Duende Camaron) were going to accompany them with their guitars, but when they saw me they said “no, we want HIM to play for us!”….and so I had no choice really.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 1945
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Ricardo)
Nice! I wish that gig had happened 5-10 years after it did. I would have played better :-)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
the booking agent said no, we are going to have you be the supporting act. I was shocked-I had been studying flamenco less than five years. I bought the GK's record, listened and thought, ah it's only rumba, I can do this.
Similar story, except I had met them before and played a little for them in the hotel lounge after their show. I was asked to open for them, and my partner who adores them and knows them personally, was too shy so we did not perform. Some years later he got them to do a cancer fundraiser after their show. Only 3 guys showed up (Canut, Andre, Patchai) and I was asked to open for them with with my wife dancing. No problem. They did not have guitars so my friends that had the rumba cover group (Duende Camaron) were going to accompany them with their guitars, but when they saw me they said “no, we want HIM to play for us!”….and so I had no choice really.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Mark2)
Thank you! What a brilliant story!
quote:
Ok, here's another story re:Mariano
As I mentioned he gave me a lot of gigs. It started to snowball in 1988. I found myself with a week to prepare for a solo gig opening for the Gypsy Kings at the Fillmore in San Francisco. It was their first time in SF, and all the record companies and various music figures were going to be there.
I had been playing in a lounge there during breaks between acts on the main stage. During one of those gigs, I played a Sabicas picado por solea and got a standing O. I looked up, surprised because my picado has never been stellar, and there was Bill Graham talking to the booking agent and pointing right at me.
Next time I called to play in the lounge, the booking agent said no, we are going to have you be the supporting act. I was shocked-I had been studying flamenco less than five years. I bought the GK's record, listened and thought, ah it's only rumba, I can do this.
But as the day got closer I felt the nerves. I called Mariano, and I asked him to refer a dancer and singer that I could bring with me. I had almost no experience playing for dance or cante, so really I was grasping for straws.
He said "You are opening for a group so you want to bring a group?" Yes, I said. He said "But you don't have a group! You have the solos I taught you, so strap on your cajones and get out there!" I said "It's a big stage" He replied " We are bigger than all the stages in the world!"
His words helped give me the confidence to get through it. I won't say I wasn't nervous because I was. But another Mariano piece of wisdom helped-he advised that if you want to perform, you have to know the music not 100%, but 200%. Because when in front of the audience you will lose something. If you go in at 100%, you'll fail, but at 200%, if you lose 30-40% you'll still be ok.
I played close to my best at that time, and that gig led to many more great opportunities. Without Mariano, I would never have played the Fillmore, which was a place I grew up seeing my favorite bands. I would never have caught the eye of Bill Graham, or done many other things in music.
In my time with the guitar, I have studied with many players, rock, jazz, etc. Mariano was unique as a teacher. He loved to teach, and he loved his students.
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Ricardo)
:D
quote:
Similar story, except I had met them before and played a little for them in the hotel lounge after their show. I was asked to open for them, and my partner who adores them and knows them personally, was too shy so we did not perform. Some years later he got them to do a cancer fundraiser after their show. Only 3 guys showed up (Canut, Andre, Patchai) and I was asked to open for them with with my wife dancing. No problem. They did not have guitars so my friends that had the rumba cover group (Duende Camaron) were going to accompany them with their guitars, but when they saw me they said “no, we want HIM to play for us!”….and so I had no choice really.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (in reply to Ricardo)
Back on topic, the Renaissance theory stuff I mentioned earlier, you can see in this example here at 15:54, how the Phrygian type harmony evolves out of performance practices of obeying rules of vocal polyphony. Vs. Arabic style microtone inflections, I feel flamenco singers are doing more of this “ficta alteration” to melodies relative to guitar chords that function as the counter voices (also applying ficta as needed).
This in conjunction with the more “vertical” thinking we see in Bermudo’s theory discussion (and in this same video at 20:20), pointing toward equal temp fixed frets and chordal voice leading with guitars/vihuela/lutes, plant the seeds of “flamenco theory”. I never thought before to look here because, we keep getting told flamenco music is “young” as in Baroque and afterward, or even younger. Here is Bermudo (thanks to estebanana):
Printable Version
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