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: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Adam)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Adam
I love how so many people define "traditional" basically as "whatever was current when I got into flamenco," as if Paco Peña or Sabicas or Niño Ricardo were playing something which flamencos in the 1910s would consider "traditional."
Well i got into flamenco in 2003/2004, which is about the time Cositas came out and i really really really really wouldnt describe that as traditional flamenco
wow even today 8 years after, its still up there at the peak of modern flamenco guitar.
Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
But if I were to pick just one that is very special it would be Almoraima.
My sentiments exactly, Grisha. Almoraima is my favorite as well.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill, do you consider THAT traditional flamenco? Or it's simply your favorite and it's only got some flamenco elements? I ask because it is not very old school playing or instrumentation, and earlier you state you don't "like it as flamenco" refering to Paco's more recent work. It doesn't make sense to me what you are saying. Saying you don't like Paco's flamenco of late is quite different then saying Paco's playing is NOT flamenco as you know it. Basically, you were sounding just like Donn Pohren and scores of other aficionados who have been saying since the 80's Paco should NOT be calling his music flamenco anymore.
For the record my favorite single albm of Paco is Fantasia 1969. Yet, I have no problem describing Paco's concert wednesday as 100% FLAMENCO with 3 exceptions being the two movie theme intros for Buleria and the ending Rumba, and Zyryab which is a flamenco fusion piece based in part on Mclaughlins Meeting of the spirits yet contains elements of fandango, then with cante por buleria and even siguiriya thrown in making it the only proper "fusion" of the night.
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo For the record my favorite single albm of Paco is Fantasia 1969.
Ricardo, this might be a good opportunity to ask why you prefer Fantasia over Fabulosa guitarra? Is it because on Fabulosa its not his own compositions? Isnt Fantasia the disc with strings?
Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deniz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo For the record my favorite single albm of Paco is Fantasia 1969.
Ricardo, this might be a good opportunity to ask why you prefer Fantasia over Fabulosa guitarra? Is it because on Fabulosa its not his own compositions? Isnt Fantasia the disc with strings?
You got a pic of paco as your avatar and you don't know the difference between fantasia and duende flamenco de....?
I have to give a reason? Ok I like the sound better first of all....it sounds sweet and mid rangy and dry and clean....for sure a blanca. Unlike Fabulosa which is that woody sound, and not so clean voiced, I am sure a negra. (exact opposite as many have claimed based on album photos). Playing is good too on Fabulosa, but much better interms of expression and composition and technique on second disc. Both contain pieces composed by others. I love all of paco's work but Fantasia is the only album I like every single note first to last as if it is perfection as far as guitar solo goes. And it's his only full length disc that is guitar SOLO. Not that that is THE reason but it is part of why it stands out. (Fabulosa had castanets, other recordings have palmas or other percussion).
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Bill, do you consider THAT traditional flamenco? Or it's simply your favorite and it's only got some flamenco elements? I ask because it is not very old school playing or instrumentation, and earlier you state you don't "like it as flamenco" refering to Paco's more recent work. It doesn't make sense to me what you are saying.
Ricardo, I did not state that I do not like any of Paco's works that pushed the boundaries of flamenco. I am not wedded to "old school" flamenco. What I wrote was, "I appreciate all that he has done to advance flamenco. But for some time now, he has pushed the boundaries to a point that no longer appeals to me as flamenco." Almoraima, while not "old school" flamenco, is still within the range that appeals to me. It was recorded long ago, and his more recent concerts and recordings are what I was referring to when I stated that it no longer appeals to me as flamenco. But please understand, I still very much like and appreciate his mastery of the guitar.
Cheers,
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."
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to BarkellWH)
I kind of doubt you liked that concert, because the normal reaction in that case would be "yeah it may not be flamenco, but i liked it", you would defend the artist using your taste, because it is ultimately your taste which evaluates this evening as worthful or not (normally). You are bashing Paco NOT because you didnt like it, but because he doesnt match an arbitrary definition of "traditional" (?) flamenco, or even of "flamenco" itself at all, which almost all professional flamenco artists of our time wouldnt agree with? Sorry but it seems to me that either you simply didnt like the concert and dont want to say because people would take your remarks as a matter of taste OR you have lost any rational connection in dealing with art.
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
You got a pic of paco as your avatar and you don't know the difference between fantasia and duende flamenco de....?
I always mix those two up. Probably because intuitively I think the orchestral album should be named Fantasia... and then i get confused "wasnt it duende with the orchestra on?"
I think i know what you mean with mid range. Tbh its the thing i dont like in flamenco guitar recordings. I like more "thin" trebles, ie trebly trebles Fabulosa, although clearly recorded with worse mics etc, not as clean as Fantasia, has a more open sound to it.
If i had to pick my favorite it would be Siroco or Zyryab. But it would be a hard decision, because i like Luzia and Cosita just as well.
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
Ricardo,
the point is you can't force someone to like something. You can write down 100 pages how flamenco evolved during the years, etc. but thats useless and can't convice someone to LIKE something.
I am sure they just want to say "i don't like this so much", but instead some use words like "traditional" . fusion jazz, and other phrases
Simply saying "i don't like it" is ok and no problem imo. I don't like flute, bass, etc. in flamenco. No one can convince me otherwise, UNLESS i personally start to like it (but i don't think that will happen soon)
Another example is Cante. I hated cante at the beginning. For me it was screaming ugly high male voices. I read in the forum everyone explaining how nice Cante is because of this and that. After reading, i felt exactly the same. Nothing changed. I didn't like it.
Then suddenly after months, i started to like it more and more. And then i started to like voices which i didn't like in my first phase of "liking", and so and so. You just need to listen often and again and again. Thats the only way. No books to read or opinions of others. Just listening at home alone or going to Tablaos and concerts...
I would say the same with Paco's "newer" stuff. Cositas, i needed to hear Cositas again and again until i "got" it
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
I kind of doubt you liked that concert, because the normal reaction in that case would be "yeah it may not be flamenco, but i liked it", you would defend the artist using your taste, because it is ultimately your taste which evaluates this evening as worthful or not (normally). You are bashing Paco NOT because you didnt like it, but because he doesnt match an arbitrary definition of "traditional" (?) flamenco, or even of "flamenco" itself at all, which almost all professional flamenco artists of our time wouldnt agree with? Sorry but it seems to me that either you simply didnt like the concert and dont want to say because people would take your remarks as a matter of taste OR you have lost any rational connection in dealing with art.
Nice to know you have a Ph.D. in psychology, Deniz, and that you are the final arbiter of what a "normal reaction" would have been. And if you think I was "bashing" Paco, you obviously have not read my post at all, or if you did, you clearly did not understand a thing I wrote. I will not bother repeating the elements of several of my posts on this thread that stated clearly that, while Paco's performance did not meet my taste in flamenco, it was a great, overall musical performance, bass, harmonica, and all, with Paco's unrivaled guitar mastery at the center. I do not expect you to re-read my posts, Deniz, as you obviously are so stuck on focusing on the tree of my flamenco comment that you fail completely to see the overall forest of my praise of his performance, flamenco notwithstanding.
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."
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to XXX)
I am somewhat new to flamenco, a few years of lots of listening along with fumbling with guitar. Why flamenco? It seems to get me in the ball park of the kind of sound that I experience deeply / fully. At the end of the day, it is music. Once I get into labeling, I need to be a bit careful, usually in that labeling some of the not so great reasons we get so into our chosen obsessive musical vein come more into play.
Is Paco's sound, THE sound I am looking for. Not really, though I do listen from time to time to Cositas Buenas (and by the way, I like Paco's vocals), and I enjoy it greatly.
That said, what do I want from a performer when I go to a concert? Absolutely nothing more than what the performer wants to share. I really dug the harmonica! The intensity was absolutely incredible. I might have enjoyed something a little less scripted more, but I don't think the setting is so conducive to that. Unfortunately, the opportunities for the more spontaneous environments that can produce the deepest experiences, are lacking for me aside from by myself music meditation time.
The fusion label to what he played is pretty silly, it is usually used in a not nice way. Of course there is lots of bad fusion, but this is mainly because it is just hard. Flamenco has lots and lots of structure, which I like, that structure gives a grounding on which we experience the music. That structure is too rigid in many peoples minds. Too much rigid structure, and it is all just a way for performers (and even listeners) to not listen to one another because they can just go by the metronomic unchanging structure. A great way to be alone in a crowd.
Paco has his distinctive approach, and it it is still very much structured flamenco; it is vibrant and alive because it is that structure through his understanding of it.
I expected the type of concert that I saw, but if he had chosen something radically different, I would have enjoyed it just as much.
The Kaplan concert hall is fantastic, not small, but much much smaller than the Strathmore. Tickets should be available at the door, the event organizers were not expecting to sell out.
Posts: 533
Joined: Jul. 16 2003
From: Toronto, ON, Canada
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to BarkellWH)
Given all this chat, I thought folks might want to be informed of what Paco is recording these days. Here he is with Poveda in what is, IMO, a beautiful recording, some totally gorgeous cadences complimenting Poveda who is singing really wonderfully, IMO. You might think it very light which as we all know is the style Paco plays as he gets older, but its nevertheless dynamic and responsive to the cante... understated, and it's also the way I prefer alegrias being accompanied and performed... floaty and punchy. If you can get a hold of the album, the quality is of course much better and a more effective listening experience to inspect what Paco is doing. And he is still taking courage to do innovative things, I think. Here is the link:
Btw, I recommend this album. It has appearances from a lot of top guitarists, for guitar sake, and Poveda is singing really well. Of particular note is the appearance of Isidro Munoz (Manolo Sanlucar's brother), one of Spain's currently most respected composers and a fantastic player who almost never records (Also being famous for the Tarantas recording over the opening credits of Carlos Saura's original film "Flamenco"). He has one of my favourite guitar sounds and does innovative things, too. Isidro is on the Fandangos por Solea and Sevillanas and also helped composed the aforementioned Alegrias. Diego del Morao makes two very good appearances, the buleria de cadiz being my favourite.
Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Bulerias2005)
quote:
Humberto doesn't have a problem with outside influences, but he objects when a particular palo loses its "essence". A good example is the recent trend of speeding up siguiriyas. Personally, I understand why flamenco guitarists do it and HOW exactly they are innovating... and so does Humberto... but he believes that doing this makes it sound like a slightly modified bulerias. More specifically, he thinks that this is not doing justice to the song and dance upon which the palo was based.
Humberto also takes issue with particular accents in bulerias -- for example, a bulerias that is primarily counted in sixes is eerily similar to a rumba, and loses the "punchy" feeling of the classic accenting, or even more funky accents.
Forgot I wanted to address this point earlier. I agree with his concern regarding the palo identities. Especially now a days guitarists searching for new tonos and sounds biting their own tails with levante sounding siguiriays and solea etc. In other words, the lines between the forms are blurring now we have every palo interpreted for example, in D# phrygian. It for sure takes away a bit of the "essence" that Humberto refers to, for me anyways, and it is a matter of taste if the player choses to take care with clever voicings to "remember" the old toque por medio or whatever...which has been done successfully IMO.
PDL's buleria por solea is a perfect example...it runs a dangerous risk being all in the Taranta key plus some brief modulations, not sounding like solea AT ALL. But he was careful in a couple little spots to make it sound "por medio", yet it is still a tricky thing. In defense of modern players having fun with tonos accompanying cante too, I remind of Montoya accompanying Chacon. Most of his malagueñas were accompanied POR TARANTA...meaning what we think of the proper "aire" was not clearly distinguished even for cante accomp....even BACK THEN!!! Also the Cartegeneras and some other cantes were accompanied por "granaina" toque...another strange thing where even nowadays, there might be complaints the guitar is not giving the proper "aire" for the singer of form if that was done.
Anyway, the reasoning of Payo regarding COMPAS issues, I am sorry I disagree totally and don't feel like going into why right now. People get real sensitive regarding compas topics, but in general I find people are more comfortable with rhythms they are familiar with, and the more increasing complex level of rhythm and timing can be a quick turn off in terms of taste.
As in Arashes example, if he admits or not, repeated listening IS deeper understanding or more thorough learning of the subject. Also why do the deeper listening if you don't like something? Perhaps because others advise it and you trust their opinion? What is wrong with accepting the fact that a BETTER understanding OFTEN (not always) effects the tastes as well. In other words, the more you understand about it, the more you probably will like it or at least APPRECIATE it. The main reason is because in general, people DON"T want to learn...it's that simple. Or afraid that with more exposure to the unfamiliar MIGHT make them lose their love for their current favorite things that bring joy and comfort? Like eating more and more spicy food, suddenly the old favorites are a bit bland. That is why most folks stay where they are at and are happy about it. Laziness plain and simple. I am no different myself, but at least I acknowledge it. Except at it's most superficial levels, flamenco is always a challenge for the listener. I want to challenge myself too, but it gets harder as time goes on, I have to return to my old "favorites" often after venturing out.
I don't want to force anybody to "like" what I like. But, I don't think it is fair for a lot of people in general to say something is NOT flamenco just because they DON"T like it. For me Harmonica is like seasome street....sounds like hillbilly music from my neck of the woods. The most bland awful un exotic or sweet sound I can think of....But the guy plays FLAMENCO falsetas on the thing, with such an understanding of compas and form....tons more soniquete then the critics will EVER have or ever be able to express in anyway. I don't like the sound but I can't in good conscience sit here and spout off that it is NOT flamenco, when to my heart of hearts I know darn well what he is playing.
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
For me Harmonica is like seasome street....sounds like hillbilly music from my neck of the woods.
its funny that American movies etc..probably westerns which were big in europe.. influenced flamenco with that...
i am sure theres alot more other influences to flamenco from America, like i remember reading that the more and more complicated footwork again was influenced by tap dancing, if that's accurate or not i don't know ...
...but the harmonica one i am, 99.9 % sure its a influence of American movies, westerns etc...
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Florian)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Florian ...but the harmonica one i am, 99.9 % sure its a influence of American movies, westerns etc...
hm not sure. I mean maybe it was just this harmonica guy being interested in flamenco? For me, the harmonica will always be connected to Alanis Morisette, because thats where !I! heard it the most and what stuck in my mind. Just like when i think of accordion - which is also a weird instrument like harmonica ;) - it will be connected to this Amelie movie score. But this is just the first impression when i hear it, i can of course enjoy a performance with these instruments in flamenco too. Guess its just a matter of getting used to it (if you like it), and soon you wont connect it to some hillilly music or so.
Bill, i would define what is normal and what not in dealing with art from the definition of art itself. So its really not my "homemade" psychology but rather the definition of art applied to you.
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
I don't want to force anybody to "like" what I like. But, I don't think it is fair for a lot of people in general to say something is NOT flamenco just because they DON"T like it.
Ricardo,
I don't know if your quote, cited above, was meant for me or not, but I want to assure you that I never said that Paco's latest works and performances were not flamenco. I have said that, the virtuoso guitar performance aside, I did not consider it "great" flamenco, or "my taste" in flamenco. In one of my earlier posts I summed up my take on Paco and his current flamenco performances and recordings thusly:
"I appreciate all that he has done to advance flamenco. But for some time now, he has pushed the boundaries to a point that no longer appeals to me as flamenco. It is not because I do not "understand" it, or that I need to reach a more advanced stage of appreciation. Rather, it is simply that I don't care for it as flamenco."
I clearly stated that it is "my taste" that fails to respond to it as flamenco that appeals to me, but I never made a categorical statement that what Paco is doing today is not flamenco.
Cheers,
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."
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
Bill, i would define what is normal and what not in dealing with art from the definition of art itself. So its really not my "homemade" psychology but rather the definition of art applied to you.
Deniz,
What you seem to be saying in your previous post is that you believe there is only one acceptable "normal reaction" (your words) to Paco's performance. In other words, whether it's Paco's performance or any other form of art (painting, music, architecture, etc.), any "reaction" that does not meet your categorical definition of "normal" ("from the definition of art itself," as you state in the above-cited quote) is by definition not a "normal reaction." It seems to me that yours is a very narrow, restricted definition of "normal" (not to mention "art") and leaves absolutely no room for individual thought, perception, or taste. It reminds me of the old Stalinist "Socialist-Realism," where there was only one officially acceptable form of art and only one acceptable reaction to it.
Cheers,
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."
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
As in Arashes example, if he admits or not, repeated listening IS deeper understanding or more thorough learning of the subject. Also why do the deeper listening if you don't like something? Perhaps because others advise it and you trust their opinion? What is wrong with accepting the fact that a BETTER understanding OFTEN (not always) effects the tastes as well. In other words, the more you understand about it, the more you probably will like it or at least APPRECIATE it. The main reason is because in general, people DON"T want to learn...it's that simple. Or afraid that with more exposure to the unfamiliar MIGHT make them lose their love for their current favorite things that bring joy and comfort? Like eating more and more spicy food, suddenly the old favorites are a bit bland. That is why most folks stay where they are at and are happy about it. Laziness plain and simple. I am no different myself, but at least I acknowledge it. Except at it's most superficial levels, flamenco is always a challenge for the listener. I want to challenge myself too, but it gets harder as time goes on, I have to return to my old "favorites" often after venturing out.
Ricardo,
I completely agree that deeper listening helps to understand the music more thoroughly. Like I'm sure a few others on this board I had to listen to some flamenco for quite some time before I got to really appreciate it. However, that kind of implies that our current perception of the music is irrelevant because it may easily change if we study it more carefully. So then, at what point can we actually say about ANY kind of music that we "don't like it". It just seems to me that with that logic no objective argument can be made for something being good or bad. I'm not saying I really disagree with this either but it makes it difficult to justify listening to Flamenco and not....something else.
I can tell you that for me personally every kind of music that has had a big impact on me has initially been hard to get used to. But there had to also be something to grab me right away as well. In fact I would say what often hooks me are the same catchy "hooks" in music on which pop music relies on. For flamenco that short Entre Dos Aguas video was my introduction. I couldn't tell the difference between any palos and didn't know what a buleria was but I knew I liked that video and that led me to doing some more digging. Over time I grew quite bored with rumbas in general and now I like bulerias, solea por buleria, seguirillas far more. Now the big question is, what if some type of music has the same potential but doesn't have the same "hooks" that act as an entry point into the genre. What if I had never seen that Entre Dos Aguas video? I may very well have never discovered the other sides of flamenco that I now really appreciate.
I agree with you about the "laziness" aspect. A few years ago I saw Anoushka Shankar live and while the harmony and rhythms which were completely foreign to me made it hard to really get into the music, I think if I spent more time ACTIVELY listening to it, I could really get into it. However, there's so much flamenco for me to go through that I really don't have the time or patience to go through the same process with Indian music.
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to NenadK)
Paco says it's flamenco. Since Paco is infallible when speaking ex cathedra we have to call it flamenco, and admit that Paco has changed flamenco.
But this is very different from the terminology of American music. At first there was jazz. Then as the music moved up the Mississippi River, people distinguished Kansas City jazz from New Orleans jazz. Then there was Chicago jazz. The scene of New York innovation picked up, with Louis Armstrong from New Orleans being very influential, but in a non-New Orleans manner.
The music developed into swing, a very different genre, but the evolutionary descendant of jazz. Then there was pop of the 1940s and 1950s. Jazz radiated further into Latin jazz and bebop. The boppers, to project their cool and hip self image, called the players of the older styles "moldy figs."
What Paco presents in concert is very different from his roots as an accompanist of great singers like Fosforito and Camaron. Paco himself says he felt abashed at the harmonic knowledge and improvisational fluency of McLaughlin and Di Meola, and that he struggled to keep up. Ever since he has been on a quest to expand his horizons. The result is a new music that has lots of fans. But Paco says it's flamenco.
In fact Paco's concert music is very different from what you might hear in a Jerez peña with one singer and an old school guitarist, but Paco's stuff is descended from the old school stuff like bebop descended from New Orleans jazz. You don't have to understand the chord substitutions and extensions of bop to understand New Orleans jazz. Nobody says you do, because they are recognized as different genres, with different names.
But Paco says what he plays is flamenco, the same name as applied to the very different music you might hear in a Jerez peña. So the result is people questioning whether Paco's concert stuff is really flamenco, and others saying that if you want to understand flamenco you have to understand Paco.
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
As in Arashes example, if he admits or not, repeated listening IS deeper understanding or more thorough learning of the subject. Also why do the deeper listening if you don't like something? Perhaps because others advise it and you trust their opinion? What is wrong with accepting the fact that a BETTER understanding OFTEN (not always) effects the tastes as well. In other words, the more you understand about it, the more you probably will like it or at least APPRECIATE it. The main reason is because in general, people DON"T want to learn...it's that simple. Or afraid that with more exposure to the unfamiliar MIGHT make them lose their love for their current favorite things that bring joy and comfort? Like eating more and more spicy food, suddenly the old favorites are a bit bland. That is why most folks stay where they are at and are happy about it. Laziness plain and simple. I am no different myself, but at least I acknowledge it. Except at it's most superficial levels, flamenco is always a challenge for the listener. I want to challenge myself too, but it gets harder as time goes on, I have to return to my old "favorites" often after venturing out.
Perfectly put.
The young guitarists on the scene in Spain are really the ones deciding what flamenco is or is not, and they all grew up with PDL and Camaron. We can only decide to like and/or understand it or not.
_____________________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to John O.)
quote:
hm not sure. I mean maybe it was just this harmonica guy being interested in flamenco? For me, the harmonica will always be connected to Alanis Morisette
sorry bro i am not sure what you mean...what aren't you sure about..? that the harmonica influence in flamenco probably comes from american western movies ?
unless someone tells me better i am making an assumption...american western movies were big in europe for a long time starting from the 60's...every single western movie had harmonica...if anywhere i am assuming that's where the artists that use it in flamenco got influenced
one movie that jumps to mind that i saw when i was a kid in Romania (wasent exactly a western) that had a lot of harmonica was " The Electric Horseman" ...came out in the 80's Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, pretty ok movie but all i remember was the harmonica and Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler"
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Florian)
You know what comes into my mind when thinking of western movies?
a) spitting around lol b) the music from inglorious basterds
Bill, sorry i dont have the time to explain further. I also dont like to write long posts here as for most people this is not a serious discussion forum (unless the topic is flamenco), but more a fun forum, for the light amusement of people. I will just say so much, that what a normal (or correct or whatever) way in dealing with art is deviates from the definition just like what a normal way in using a car deviates from its definition. Lets not claim freedom of thought for thoughts of which we know they are wrong. Or would you try to ride a car?
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Florian)
quote:
one movie that jumps to mind
For me it's this one.
1st coz the harmonica is part of the story. 2nd coz S. Leone is one of my fav. Directors if not my fav. 3rd coz E. Morricone used the harmonica' sound in a astonished manner (it not sounds as a simple harmonica with banjo like in the classic western movies).
Now I often think about the so called spaghetti western and the analogy that came to my mind regarding innovation vs tradition in art. I read and seen in documentaries that when maestros Leone (& Morricone) came with this particular adaptation of the western movies, the proponents of the classical western form aka J. Ford (the Pope of the genre) and his acolytes looked at Leone with scorn and contempt The purists didn't want to consider him, his movies and his art as something relevant. Just some bad taste came from Italy. Comparing what they consider as the beauty of their values and the righteousness of their heros, to the villains' characters who populates Leone's movies inhabited by a darkness philosophy...what the heck ! Outragous!
Hopefully history honored Sergio Leone, and decades after, much of his movies are considered as masterpiece. Copied, imitated, kind of inspiration for many.
Even nowayday when "The good, bad and ugly" is programmed on TV, it always do good ratings. Once in summer I went home at foot and on the way, I heard from one building to another, the gunshot from the windows. All along the way
Also, most of these western spaghetti were shooted in Andalusia. In the Almeria area I think. And it seems to my ears that E. Morricone used a lot the dissonant notes to set up the mood. The Original soundtrack of the good, bad, ugly has some tarantas voicing for me
What a digression! It's a point I came up time ago, and I think to this from to time. So This was the good moment to express it...
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Paco de Lucia's Performance in W... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
But Paco says what he plays is flamenco, the same name as applied to the very different music you might hear in a Jerez peña. So the result is people questioning whether Paco's concert stuff is really flamenco, and others saying that if you want to understand flamenco you have to understand Paco.
well I dont' feel it is a great analogy to the variety of jazz styles. The implication that what you hear in a jerez peña will always be more or less the same, significantly different then what Paco plays now, is not true. It depends entirely on WHO is playing. It has become normal of late, I realize, that "jerez" seems to mean only the toque style of Moraito....yet his uncle Morao, Parilla, Cepero, Jero Periquin, Nuñez etc, are all very different then this style, yet just as "jerez" as moraito. And now you have Diego....so sorry but I disagree that PDL's playing is so different comparing to something like New Olreans vs Bebop or cool etc. MOst likely you refer, yet again, that at Paco's concert, when he plays for a singer, the context has the group not just Paco next to a singer as you might see in a small peña. But Paco could play everything he did pretty much NOTE FOR NOTE....and it would still work fine in context of just him and a singer alone. (unlike the jazz example where the styles are so different you would have trouble marrying a new orleans guy with a cool guy in the same gig). My point is you might not like the toque of player X for whatever reason.....thats fine because there are so many different styles, but you shouldn't say if its not what you like, it's not flamenco music.
Printable Version
! Outragous! 
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