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: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to XXX)
quote:
We "instrumentalists" often forget that music is much more than notes, or harmony or resolvings. Take rhythm for example, or music that has no pitches or where the pitches are irrelevant (Drum&Base?).
Theory, be it nature science, or musical science, is just a tool to make things intellectually evident. As such the theory is not IDENTICAL with the object. You can use math to understand the theory of music. But music is not math because of that.
Music is Harmony-Melody and Rithym, so when I say music it implies any one of those elements.
The math bit, I understand what you are saying, and agree with some of it. However 1+1 is 2 and 135 is always Major and 1b35 is always minor.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Ron.M)
quote:
Saw him live in concert here and that's "exactly" what he was doing.
You can take the boy out of Jerez, but not Jerez out of the boy.
Thanks Ron! We are on exactly the same page. I saw Gerardo doing exactly what you said to Mike, before the injury, in 2005, he had all of the technique, and he showed the class that you need to play with the thumb and rasgeo in compas well before you explore other areas of technique. He told us repeatedly with words and playing, in class and in juergas almost every night. Cheers, CW
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
@Corey - so wait..let me get this straight:
Manolo says that for cante jondo, if you are in por medio minor (Am), the "V" chord is Bm7(b5) w/ E in the bass? And not E7?
But only for minor, and only for cante jondo?
Does that mean if you were playing por arriba cante jondo, the "V" chord is F#m7(b5) with B in the bass? Which would be sound like a B7(b9)sus to my 'jazz ears'.
But cante chico can use a traditional V7 sound?..unless playing the phrygian/andalucian progression, where bII acts as the "V7" chord? All of which seems dependant on the palo?
I was not aware of Manolo's writing/books until the foro. (Thank you foro and everyone who is contributing).
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to KMMI77)
"How about Malagueña? Does that count? Someone should probably call Juan Habichuela and tell him its not right to go from E7 to A minor."
Amancer Malaguena, 1977, Mundo y Formas de la Guitarra Flamenca, Manolo Sanlucar measure 57- to 58-the the first appearance of an E and Am back to back. The E is clearly the END of a phrase and the Am the BEGINNING of a new phrase. Therefore the E does not resolve to Am. E is a resolution of the previous chord before E, F Major.
Measure 66 to 67, The exact same thing occurs as described above.
M74 back to the repeat sign at 67- igual, siempre lo mismo M.76-77-igual M. 84-85 is one spot where Manolo breaks his own rule, he rectifies it by only allowing dyads to ring (pairs of notes) never letting the entire chord ring, therefore not breaking the rule.
I will analyze the Habichuela video for phrasing to see if the guitarist moves from E7 to Am within the same phrase.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
quote:
Saw a movie once where the villain says "Chance favors the prepared mind." Free set of strings from administration if you can name that movie.
Steven Segal movie Under Siege 2, Dark Territory. It was a quote by the french chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur. PM me for my address.
Anyway, the point of theory is not to think about this **** when you are with a cantaor. The point is to study as much as you can so when you have the fortune to play with a cantaor, you can make the most out of your experience. Not everyone has cantaores at their disposal.
Agree fully, you can add playing Jazz and composing.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
A point of correction.
1536: First chords in published guitar music: Alonso Mudarra "A Fantasy in the Manner of the Harp of King Ludivicio" Libro de Musica en Cifras para Vihuela. This volume contained guitar music also.
Respectfully, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
In church music there were no chords, only harmonies resulting from counterpoint. By 1600 guitarists had discovered chords as "autonomous entities." Now there was no need for counterpoint (it still lasted over another hundred years).
In flamenco the cadence is from II-I whereas in tonal it is from V-I. In tonal, therefore, dominant equals position and function. We have to modify the theory in order to explain the flamenco cadence. II is the important chord but if we call it a dominant, we are introducing its historical baggage. If we call it supertonic, then we ignore its function OUCH.
1) Your opening statement is unclear, please elucidate upon the names of the modes. 2) I just posted about chords in the Renaissance in the music of Mudarra, 1536. If it were published then, it would have been present prior to that, and it was common practice in Vihuela and Guitar to use Punteado (Picado) and Rasguado! In the early 1500s. 3) You calling the flamenco bII chord a supertonic is false, flamenco, and accompaniment of Iberian song used this practice since the Cantigas de Santa Maria of the 13th century, Moors were persecuted by Catholics from that time until after the fall of Moorish Granada in 1492. Flamenco has existed since then so says history, and Manolo Sanlucar, and Jason's teacher, Pedro Cortes when he says flamenco is 500 years old.
4) Since the system you speak of, the tonal system, expressing chord function like Rameau, of the late Baroque ca.1700-1750, to a system that existed before the Baroque altogether, in fact flamenco existed long before the Baroque, at least 108 years before the Florentine Camerata (Monteverdi, Galilei, Cui, Peri, etc.) invented Opera and Monody just after 1600. It is only after Opera was invented that this tonal system with chord function was expressed. You cannot use that to explain flamenco.
Posts: 1945
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
Dang, I can picture the guy saying it, but can't remember the movie-I think it was a steven seagal movie. Oh well, I just bought ten sets of strings at guitar center and given the amount of guitar time I get these days, I'm good for a while.
quote:
ORIGINAL: romerito
quote:
We should Do less ANALyzing altogether and do more accompanying. If you are thinking about all this crap while you are sitting next to a cantaor then you are missing the point and more than likely the tonos as well.
Off to teach myself.
Saw a movie once where the villain says "Chance favors the prepared mind." Free set of strings from administration if you can name that movie.
Anyway, the point of theory is not to think about this **** when you are with a cantaor. The point is to study as much as you can so when you have the fortune to play with a cantaor, you can make the most out of your experience. Not everyone has cantaores at their disposal.
Que viva el flamenco Long live theory tards too. Theory should be like hot rods or wood shop. Something to do when not doing flamenco. It has the added benefit of being potentially useful in real circumstances too.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to turnermoran)
quote:
@Corey - so wait..let me get this straight:
"Manolo says that for cante jondo, if you are in por medio minor (Am), the "V" chord is Bm7(b5) w/ E in the bass? And not E7?
But only for minor, and only for cante jondo?
Does that mean if you were playing por arriba cante jondo, the "V" chord is F#m7(b5) with B in the bass? Which would be sound like a B7(b9)sus to my 'jazz ears'.
But cante chico can use a traditional V7 sound?..unless playing the phrygian/andalucian progression, where bII acts as the "V7" chord? All of which seems dependant on the palo?
Dear TurnerMoran and Esteemed Foro Members,
I really appreciate and respect this foro and want to preface this post with the caviat that I am just trying to share the philosophy, theory, and system of Manolo Sanlucar with those who are interested, also for those who share another view to consider. I am profoundly intrigued by Moorish rule of Europe and it's lasting preservation of Hellenic culture, and Manolo, the most profound guitarist and composer in flamenco in my humble opinion, is dedicated to this pursuit and of the dissemination of his theories about flamenco. This is how I pay honor and respect to him, and show my dedication to the preservation and expansion of the art of flamenco.
Have you ever wondered how Manolo created the work Tauromagia? What I am telling you is key to that sound, Manolo swears to it, and tells us to share it with others. He has taken the alto level of the class in Cordoba through the entire work, analyzing it in every way, and his album with Carmen Linares as well, and Medea. This is what I have learned in all of that. It is a treasure. One can choose to use it or not. I know it well and am committed to share this knowledge with anyone who is interested. Manolo will be here, and for anyone who wants to study with him, and be better prepared for success with him, the information below is extremely helpful, in fact vital.
Here is my answer to the quote above: the "V" chord is Bm7(b5) without the E in the bass. That modification is commonly made by Vicente Amigo, but Manolo will only alter it rarely for melodic reasons by playing the open E first string above the Bm7(b5) chord. This chordal concept, Manolo says, is preferable to altering the tonic chord by adding the 7th above E and then resolving to Am. That even though flamenco guitarists do this, it is not correct according to older practice. The Bm7(b5) should be played before going to Am on beat 10 for example in Solea'. Manolo says that even though flamenco guitarists do it, it is not correct for the G# in the E chord to resolve upward to A, and that by playing Bm7(b5) the A is already present, and this false Occidental resolution does not occur. I heard Manolo say this for four years and in the fourth, I played this chord each time in the Solea' as I accompanied David Pino with Paco Serrano and Manolo Franco on guitars and Manolo Sanlucar on palmas. When I did this repeatedly, he stopped us and made an example of me. He told the class how I actually listened to him, and I understood him well, and that I did what he has been saying in class since 1994, and he said as I played "That, that is it, that is correct." I cannot go against the advice of Manolo, he is the Maestro. Manolo respects all others and their right to do what they wish. This, he says, is his observation in more than 53 years as an artist.
2) and yes only for the (iv) chord in cante hondo.
3) Does that mean if you were playing por arriba cante jondo, the "V" chord is F#m7(b5) with B in the bass? Which would be sound like a B7(b9)sus to my 'jazz ears'
What I described above is for E-por arriba, for por medio, the "V" chord is Em7(b5) and so on....
F#m7(b5) is the "V" chord in Granaina-B. I think that is what you meant. Let me know if I am unclear.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
@Romerito
quote:
In tonal, therefore, dominant equals position and function. We have to modify the theory in order to explain the flamenco cadence. II is the important chord but if we call it a dominant, we are introducing its historical baggage. If we call it supertonic, then we ignore its function OUCH.
I see your point. Now that I think of it, I guess that means that I hear Alegrias, Farruca, Fandangos de Heulva (sort of..) as "tonal" music, and the many other palos with bII - I cadence as modal.
As for your mention of subdom, dom, supertonic, etc, - and the baggage (although I'm not sure what you mean by that) - I personally never think about that stuff. I'm aware of it, but I just hear everything as "taking me closer to home base (I)" or "taking me closer to the dominant" - whether that "dominant" is actually a V chord, or the thing that creates a similar effect. Which could be a V chord substitute or the bII-I Andalucian cadance.
And if it's taking me closer to the dominant, I know that it will then take me closer to home after getting to the dominant. Is tension increasing, or decreasing, and when will it eventually resolve and take back to home..sweet sweet home.
With all things being relative. In other words, a bulerias that eventually "resolves" to an A7(b9)?!?!?! Ahhhh "home"...but that's bulerias for ya, right?
Posts: 1821
Joined: Jul. 26 2009
From: The land down under
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
Corey,
I participated in Manolo's course prior to the release of his Medea CD. I would be interested to hear his reasoning behind it. I don't relate well to the music on it at all. What are your thoughts??
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
quote:
What I described above is for E-por arriba, for por medio, the "V" chord is Em7(b5) and so on....
F#m7(b5) is the "V" chord in Granaina-B. I think that is what you meant. Let me know if I am unclear.
Ah! I think I'm see where I'm misunderstanding you. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think what you are saying is that Bm7(b5) should be used instead of E7 when E7 acts as a secondary dominant (that resolves to Am - the iv min chord) when you are por-arriba (like in Solea). So that a chord progression for Solea might go: F - C - F - E (repeat perhaps) Am - G - F - E *Bm7b5*...(going to -> Am - G - F - E
Is that right? Or does the Bm7(b5) replace the E chord entirely. Or am I way off the mark?
If so, that explains my shock to hear a theory in which a V-I (or V-i min) cadence is not correct - in Manolo's view.
...which is still interesting I think. I'm quite curious about all this.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
quote:
II-I bII equals neapolitan in minor or major. When we speak about the chord on the sixth scale degree in minor we do not have to call it bVI. Why? Because it is inherent in the scale. Same for II in flamenco
Personally, I disagree that it's not necessary to clarify "bII" when it's inherent. While that may be true, I think it's better for sake of complete consistency and clarity to reiterate that a bII is a bII, and a bVI is a bVI, even if it's inherent. Because we spell a major chord 1-3-5, and a minor chord 1-b3-5, don't we? Isn't b3 "inherent" in a minor chord.
According to your theory, wouldn't we call both 1-3-5 and let the qualifier (maj or min) be the determiner of what we meant? And I would think that would be way too confusing.
And since we don't write "Aeolian" or "Dorian" - as written words - into sheet music, it may not be clear which is in effect. Therefore, using "bVI" or "VI" is common in analyzing progressions to be clear. I think that's smoother than constantly saying something like "meas. 4 - 8 in Dorian, meas. 9 - 12 in Aeolian". I say let the numbering system prevail, and let it express the positions of chords and scale degrees chromatically, even if it reiterates a governing system. Because it isn't always possible to cleanly express the governing system - which is itself prone to change/modulation, cetc
Example - what if a progression essentially comes from Aeolian, and for 4 bars, the melody is based on melodic minor, and the chords are harmonized as such. Like an Am progression that for 4 bars is based more on Am6 harmony. When you analyze it, according to your theory, how would you analyze the difference between "bVI" and "VI" if the bVI is designated as VI. Would it be "VI" and "VI natural"? "VI Aeolian" and "VI Dorian" - or "VI melodic minor"?? Isn't it easier to be using bVI the whole time (when in Aeolian), and have VI at your disposal for when that occurs?
Granted, this is all semantics...but how would you analyze in situations like these?
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
quote:
ORIGINAL: romerito In the end, the judges decided that resolving to that chord changes the aire of the phrygian so much, it is actually minor.
Ah ok now i begin to understand what he is actually meaning with "E7-Am". He is not against E7-Am categorically but means the extensive use of the Am color? There is one thing which struck me regarding the minor thing (long before the Manolo quote i should mention:)). It is a cycle and he (Kris) ends it, instead of a C#, with a f# type of chord. There is also a Jesus de Rosario falseta por Rondena which ends more on f#, also used in a cyclic manner.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
To try and steer this thing back to its original point..... I just posted some things with TAB examples that might help some of the nonTheoryTards find some fun sounds and get into trouble.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
quote:
We are in Phrygian. Traditional flamenco does not modulate so no problems there.
Well, I can say that I am not qualified to continue debating my point of view if traditional flamenco is the parameter, since I don't know enough of flamenco history, and where the lines are drawn between traditional and modern.
However, for sake of simplicity, living in the times we live in, the idea of one system that works for everything is my preference.
And based on a previous post, I thought you were arguing the same point:
quote:
I truly believe we can use tonal theory for flamenco. We have to rid ourselves of our biases and ethnocentricities and really think about how things work in order for it to be fruitful. Theory should not be this reified thing, a FACT, an immutable law. It should be used for thinking through problems and trying to explain how things work.
quote:
So are you in favor of one analysis system that only works for traditional flamenco - and a different system for flamenco that has modulations?
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to turnermoran)
sorry about the confusing use of quotes.
I meant to end the quote with Romerito's quote (ending with "...how things work.")
"So are you in favor of one analysis system that only works for traditional flamenco - and a different system for flamenco that has modulations?" are my words, and my question.
I haven't figured out how to make multiple quotes in one post?
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