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.
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
the weirdness of toques flamencos
Paco Pena's book is de rigeur for anyone without the priviledge of a flamenco teacher, but man it has some problems. There is no bulerias, no tangos, and no solea por bulerias. These toques are probably #1, 3, and 4 for what you might actually play if you did some accompanying. It is just too, too bad that he didn't see fit to include these. Imagine how great they would be and how much non-Spaniards would have benefited over the years! Get rid of the Garrotin and Columbianas and put something you can use! :)
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
I agree. Its a great, solid, intermediate book of flamenco 'studies'. The toques are just choc full of decent trad. falsetas. I keep coming back to it as a source of reference - I've really got my money's worth out of that book. A lot of it is reasonable gigging material too.
I have a bit of a soft spot for that book as it was my first introduction to flamenco about five years ago when my classical guitar teacher at the time set me the Farruca as my weekly study piece. I remember it well as I just couldn't get thru it - all those weird strumming techniques!
Paco's rasgueado notation drives me nuts, but I think its much more sensible to listen to the ras. on the tape and work out your own solution anyway, despite him saying in the preface that everything should be played exactly as written.
Totally agree about the absent toques, I guess Paco is more of a soloist and that may have influenced his choice of material.
Another recording from the book by yours truly is on its way to the upload section soon...
Posts: 1770
Joined: Jul. 11 2003
From: The Netherlands
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
hi!
It is written a long time ago, I play for about 16 years flamenco now, and I think there was not even a solea por bulerias by then, also it looks like bulerias is getting more imortand now than than.
I am not sure of this, it is a long time ago with no internet, so I did not know a lot in that time about flamenco ( stil do not b.t.w.) but that could be an answer.
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
I think Paco considered Buleria too complex for a student book and at that time Tangos might not have been as important or interesting a toque as it has become today. Toques is a great wee book and no surprise it's still selling well.
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria
Paco Pena's book is de rigeur for anyone without the priviledge of a flamenco teacher, but man it has some problems. There is no bulerias, no tangos, and no solea por bulerias. These toques are probably #1, 3, and 4 for what you might actually play if you did some accompanying. It is just too, too bad that he didn't see fit to include these. Imagine how great they would be and how much non-Spaniards would have benefited over the years! Get rid of the Garrotin and Columbianas and put something you can use! :)
How many non Spaniards do you think had the level, the wish or the opportunity to accompany at the time this book was written? Close to zero. This book was written to give that hand full of beginning solo flamenco players (already a very high ambition outside spain) some exiting material they could work on, nothing more nothing less. It's indeed a pity he didn't enclose a bulerias or a tangos but i guess they were considered to be to complex for beginners. As a matter of fact, Paco's ambition to give them something exiting and good already raised the level to higher levels then intended. At the time solea por bulerias was not as popular as at precent day (you'll struggle to find a solo recording of it in that period of time...paco had only 1, so had Paco de Lucia). When i entered the Dutch dance scene in the early 90ties i was more likely to encounter a Garrotin then what i like to call Solea por Bulerias. The Colombianas is a marvelous piece that can uplift any solo-performance for non-knowledgeable audience (for years the over majority of the listeners) I wish i had 20 pieces like that. Try to see it in it's time (as a matter of fact it's probably still 1 of the best books available).
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to hando)
quote:
ORIGINAL: hando
So this is considered beginner material? I thought I was making some progress...
That was the initial intention but Paco feared that people would abandon it when things would become to simple/boring, so he ended up making things a bit more challenging.... as a result the level ended up higher then intended... i actually played the Colombianas at my final exam for Paco's University School because the room was packed with non-flamenco listeners and i wanted everyone to have a great time. (some parts of the book are a lifetime challenge).
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: the weirdness of toques flamencos (in reply to Erik van Goch)
quote:
[At the time solea por bulerias was not as popular as at precent day (you'll struggle to find a solo recording of it in that period of time...paco had only 1, so had Paco de Lucia)
Traditionally, the form was referred to always as "buleria por solea", or just "solea por medio" or just "solea". We talk much about it in the past. Popularity had nada to do with it I say rather, the book already contained Solea. I hazard a guess that solea played for singing more often por medio than arriba. Guitar solos as old as montoya, who had a fantastic version by the way. Sabicas was the first I know of to call it "solea por buleria", probably cuz he played it as solea but actually plays bulerias at the end. Anyway, a subtle distinction that nowadays people think it is it's own form. So now you can play solea por buleria as a form in any key. PDL had recorded Celosa (1969), and Solera (1973) as solo pieces that are both solea por medio or buleria por solea. The end of "Plaza alta" is por arriba but also considered "buleria por solea". But to say the form was not popular at time of book publishing is not really true, it's just that most players made more full compositions out of por arriba, and same is true today.
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