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
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
coreydefresno
Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 5 2010
|
 RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
Actually, there is a big misunderstanding concerning scale degree and function.
In the early modes notes acquired the names:
F: Subdominant/lower dominant
a: Submendiant/lower mediant
C: Tonic
e: Mediant
G: Dominant
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.
I enjoy the lively debate.
Respectfully,
Corey
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2010 0:05:47
 |
|
coreydefresno
Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 5 2010
|
|
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.
Un cordial saludo,
Corey
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2010 2:15:10
|
|
turnermoran
Posts: 391
Joined: Feb. 6 2010
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2010 6:46:47
|
|
turnermoran
Posts: 391
Joined: Feb. 6 2010
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2010 19:27:04
|
|
 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
