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.
|
|
|
Sight more important than sound?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Turron)
|
|
|
I watched "God's Fiddler" the other night, a documentary about the most revolutionary violinist of the 20th century, Jascha Heifetz. He was the reigning virtuoso of the century. He showed little effort when playing, and his facial expression was deadpan. He was often criticized as a "cold" performer by professional music critics.
But in the video, time after time, other violin virtuosi such as Yitzhak Perlman, Ida Haendel and Ruggiero Ricci used words like "burning passion", "fire, just fire," "incendiary playing."
I heard Heifetz on record long before I saw him perform. He always struck me as the embodiment of both passion and precision.
I often close my eyes at concerts.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 20 2013 18:19:27
 |
|
Mark2
Posts: 1871
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Leñador)
|
|
|
I have to disagree,
Timberlake is more famous because more people like his music than Tomatito's. Not that Timberlake's music is better, it's just more enjoyable to more people.
And I think it's also true that there are guy's who are better at pop music and better singers than him but will never make a dime because they aren't young and good looking.
I also disagree about the general public not knowing great musicianship when they hear it. Some do, some don't IMO.
Performing musicians are entertainers. Some people like J.Lo, some like Paco. It's also not impossible to like both.
I used to play for an older female dancer, and she was pretty skilled. A friend of mine got a gig and he hired a younger dancer who was extremely attractive. His friends, who were not afficianados, ended up seeing both dancers on different nights and told my buddy how much more they liked the younger one.
I thought at the time how lame that was. But years later, I realized that their thinking was maybe not as screwy as I had thought. In terms of entertainment value, perhaps the incredibly beautiful girl , who moved well, had some serious appeal even though her footwork was not in the same class as the other dancer. Not being flamencos, maybe they couldn't tell exactly how much more experience and technique the older lady had, or if they could, it was not enough to offset the difference in looks. I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid? Or simply honest in what they found entertaining?
I'll talk Diego del Morao with anyone, but there's few who I know that are interested.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lenador
The general public are not musicians and have no real way to judge a musicians talent so this is what they go to.
This is why Justin Timberlake is so much more famous then Tomatito.
Kinda sad but then again do I really want to talk about the intricacies of Diego del Morao's playing with everyone I come across?
Let the dumb masses have their dumb music, this way too I know to avoid you when I hear 50 cent blasting out of your car.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 20 2013 20:02:22
|
|
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
But in the video, time after time, other violin virtuosi such as Yitzhak Perlman, Ida Haendel and Ruggiero Ricci used words like "burning passion", "fire, just fire," "incendiary playing."
RNJ
Now Richard you are going to think that I am trying to trick you into reading the Guardian but in fact I was just too lazy to find the original New York times post.
With the general public expectation is everything. Here is an abbreviated discussion about Joshua Bells experience of busking. I was shocked that the reporter and Bell were surprised when he fell flat. I thought it would have been a certainty.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2007/apr/18/joshuabellnoordinarybusker
Today on Radio 4 I heard what was supposed to be an indepth discussion about music. What I heard was a rather inarticulate young man talking about the terrible cod poetry he had set to hackneyed chord progressions. The interviewer had no knowledge of or genuine emotional attachment to music. This is the level of debate we have learned to accept.
Try and actually discuss the quality of a performance critically and you are likely to be met with confusion and hostility. Cloth eared afficianados have their sacred cow's and woe betide you if offer criticism. They will inevitably cite allegedly unimpeachable credentials rather than actually demonstrating an understanding of your point or providing a cogent answer of their own devising.
I am familiar with the Heifetz documenatary and in fact the spin off archival mish mash of the same interviews which deals with other Violinists from the first half of the twentieth century who are well represented in film. I think it was called The Great Violinists after the book of the same name.
Whilst I have never ever heard any string player of any accomplishment or insight seriously questions Heifetz' command of his instrument it is actually quite rare to hear him commended as a musician. But if someone came to your home and told you that they were making a film called 'God's Fiddler' you might put to side the snidier comments that would pepper you discussion in an honest moment with a fellow professional. Comments like overly romantic, emotionally uninvolved, dictatorial, inflexible, indifferent to harmony, more concerned with showing off than illustrating the composers intent, using every trick at every opportunity.....
But for all that he remains perhaps the most technically accomplished violinist of the recorded age and this mastery alone often imbues his performances with energy and panache whether he has brought any affection or respect to the music or not.
And maybe if the same celebrated artist fresh from his gushing interview on Heifets or Enescu or Ysaye or (good lord help me) Menuhin saw Joshua Bell in the tube they might rather quickly move on. Maybe momentarily challenged but comforting themselves with the thought that although his Chaconne was commendably neat he, after all, was only a talented student.
Whereas when I saw Bell in Glagsow playing The Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in 1998 I just thought, 'he wants me to know that he can play more than he wants to share this piece with me' and 'Leonidas Kavakos' did this better last year.
So maybe Mr Bell was having a bad night or maybe philistinism RUNS DEEP.
Whether it is the sight of a beautiful dancer or a gushing review by a literature graduate in the Washington Post(maybe even a Yale man) or the recommendation of an artist/pundit or the fact that the guitar has a golpeador or not there is more to this sight before sound business than meats the ear.
D.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 20 2013 23:10:50
|
|
flamencositar
Posts: 76
Joined: Aug. 8 2012
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid?
If they honestly thought the older woman was less skilled then HELL yes they are stupid. lets say ignorant. no never mind stupid is better. dumb moronic idiots. And superficial.
No before I yell "educate yourselves in ALL things..." I will say it is perfectly fine to LIKE the hot dancer more, or sucky singer etc, for whatever reason. But you are not allowed to say she is a more skilled artist if she is not. Why people always confuse that I don't get.
I have witnessed what you are describing at a Paco Pena concert. First male dancer is doing some whack ballet/flamenco dance thing. It was about as pure as poo water. 2nd dancer was much more about the proper dance. Ballet boy got a standing O, with me and my wife sitting on our buts going wtf is everyone is excited about. 2nd dancer, el puro, got 2 people standing O from my wife and I. The rest of the audience looked at us as if either crack heads or knew something they didn't.
PS: Hot chick doing wrong and jacked up flamenco TRUMPS old woman doing correct flameco. 
_____________________________
Still the body, quiet the mind, free the soul
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 21 2013 18:53:13
|
|
flamencositar
Posts: 76
Joined: Aug. 8 2012
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Marlies Jansen)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marlies Jansen
quote:
PS: Hot chick doing wrong and jacked up flamenco TRUMPS old woman doing correct flameco.
Flamencositar, that hot chick may arouse you - and maybe that is all you are after - but that old woman can move you. Or to put it more bluntly: the chick may stir up things in your crutch, but the old woman is able to stir up your soul.
And I wouldn't use the word 'correct' flamenco, but 'true' flamenco, based on authentic feeling. I once interviewed dancer Farruquito and asked him if it bothered him that the audience always wants him to be spectacular. He told me that what he was looking for when dancing was the truth. And if he hadn't found it on stage, he had to keep on dancing in the dressing room.
For me there is a distinction between flamenco as a showcase of excellence (look at my fast footwork, listen to my dazzling picados, my endless melismas) and flamenco as a means of expressing and transmitting true emotions. The older I get the more I get interested in the latter one.
And there is nothing wrong with your perspective, but it's only one. We all SEE and appreciate the same thing differently. You like old ragged prune skinned women, I like the young ones that are vapid and have no talent in life other than being hot.
And if it still fails upon you that I am joking with the hot chick comment, read what I wrote above my hot chick comment. We agree.
I just don't get bent out of shape because the average joe with a mild interest in any art form does not seem to get "it." Actually I prefer it that way, for I am not a believer in mass consumption of flamenco or art in general. I like it in a niche, so it doesn't get the Mcdonald treatment, where it has to be homognized for mass consumption, bland and boring like cardboard.
Cheers mate.
Cheers mate.
_____________________________
Still the body, quiet the mind, free the soul
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 22 2013 15:29:05
|
|
Mark2
Posts: 1871
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what they based their preference on, but I'm thinking it was not "She clearly has more interesting footwork, better arms, and sharper compas."
But would you agree that footwork and great technique in general doesn't always win the day over artists who manage to express themselves in flamenco without as much raw technique? Guys like Farruco could take over a room just by striking a pose. I'm not saying that he didn't also have the chops.
If you agree with that point, then it becomes more complicated to determine who is the "more skilled" artist. Is the more skilled artist the one with the best technique or the most profound expression?
A single movement, or a perfectly placed note, can create an emotional response in an audience that trumps better technique.
As an example, Jeff Beck vs. Malmsteen
I personally would not consider Malmsteen to be more skilled than Beck. I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid?
If they honestly thought the older woman was less skilled then HELL yes they are stupid. lets say ignorant. no never mind stupid is better. dumb moronic idiots. And superficial.
No before I yell "educate yourselves in ALL things..." I will say it is perfectly fine to LIKE the hot dancer more, or sucky singer etc, for whatever reason. But you are not allowed to say she is a more skilled artist if she is not. Why people always confuse that I don't get.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 22 2013 16:10:17
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Mark2)
|
|
|
quote:
A single movement, or a perfectly placed note, can create an emotional response in an audience that trumps better technique.
You should probably know me by now, I don't prescribe to the bogus "feel vs chops" critique.
To examine your description, I consider a "movement" and "perfectly placed note"...directly related to TECHNIQUE and TIMING. As to your other statement, I feel that the person with the BETTER COMPAS is always clearly the more advanced performer. I for one see right through the charismatic "expressive" artist that is trying to cover their limitations with certain shiny objects. Farruco's 'pose" is all technical, to the point it is a natural expression. Try to copy or do better and you confront your own technical limitations, plain and simple. Carpeta a perfect example. What could that baby possibly know about life love and pain such that he can express so well with dance better than anyone of us???
People confuse speed and flash with "technique". Malmsteen is fast and sometimes very expressive, yet he rushes the compas all the time to the point it is annoying. Perhaps to unschooled listeners it sounds either like "too many notes" or is simply amazing. Beck always controls the time in a way it feels like he has more knowledge and technique and schooling. Malmsteen sounds un schooled and crazy at times, even when he (and especially when) he attempts to interpret Bach or Paganini... always hap hazard and rushing tempo. Speed is not always technique...but controlling rhythm is.
People talk about Moraito music as if it is "easier" or requires LESS technique than others. Ok then please reproduce it? Moraito has a technique and control up there with the rest of the maestros, with an added dimension to it in certain aspects of "soniquete" expression. It is not simply that he is from jerez and "feels" it a certain way, but more importantly that he has a physical and technical ABILITY to produce that "sound" which was many years in the making. Many many hours of repeating the same phrasing until it is natural as speaking or walking. THAT is high technique IMO. People who play music and make it somehow SOUND difficult to play rather than natural and flowing, are actually LACKING in technique skills, yet inevitably get labeled as "technical players".
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 22 2013 19:00:42
|
|
 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 |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
