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.
There is a logic behind only seven note names, you can’t have two Gs you are simply altering one.
Sorry man but that is incorrect. Or if it's not, there need not be seven note names. If you're gonna use western theory you have to be sensitive to how the practice/culture informs the theory and how and why you are "translating" it in such a way. There is one mode (not scale) that accounts for all diatonic chords as well as the tonic with the properly raised third: the flamenco octatonic e-f-g-g#-a-b-c-d-e. Most of what Montoya, Ricardo and Sabicas did melodically and harmonically can be analyzed, described, and/or explained with it. Even chromatic inflections can be reduced in many instances to the octatonic "mode". The quintuplet run in Sabicas solea, for example, includes gnat and g# and one could take out the c# and d# without losing the overall flavor of the run.
G#-a-b-c-c# d-d#-e-f-e G#-a-b-c-d c-b---c-d-e The rest of the run is verbatim.
Also, regarding the andalusian cadence in melodic and harmonic form; it's true that there are other successions/progressions that are more common, but take the descending tetrachord out and you got nothing
Furthermore, modal theories in many traditions are more than their abstract scales (i.e. thaat = scale, raga = how scale is used, including chromatic alterations, turns of phrase, etc).
El Burdo: there are good reasons to be concerned with phrygian "key." First, the popular, folk, and "refined" Spanish guitars were always in proximity with everyone borrowing from everyone else. Furthermore, flamenco theorists who double as practitioners or very informed inside aficionados, have all used this terminology. The Hurtado Torres that mr. Jernigan has noted, Lola Fernandez, Castro Buendia, Nunez, and many more. They are not reinventing the wheel but they do have to occasionally create "terrain ready" versions within the overall tonal framework.
All I know is that I was never taught any kind of 8-note mode or scale.
When practising flamenco scales in phrygian, what usually happens for me is that it is either natural or dominant depending entirely on what is physically possible or convenient. That includes runs over two octaves where the lower octave is natural and the higher one dominant, but I've never practiced 8 notes within an octave, and tbh I've never seen it practiced. If it's not a 7-note diatonic, then what I'm practicing is most likely some form of chromatic scale.
I get those arguing that it's phrygian natural or phrygiant dominant. And I get those arguing it's chromatic. But the 8-tone mode makes very little sense to me. Sure, a lot of things would fit in that mode, but I just don't think that is what most guitarists are feeling/thinking when they're playing. The two things they drill into you when learning is chromatic and phrygian natural or dominant. An 8-note mode is just not something that is taught, and so it's not in the minds of players. Anyways, that's just me.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
but take the descending tetrachord out and you got nothing
I like how you include that nonsense right after you try to shoot down the logic behind limiting your note names to 7.
It’s funny because the logic of tetra chords comes out of using 7 note per octave modes.
Anyway flamenco is not modal, Harmonic minor doesn’t ever have Both a raised seventh and a lowered one.... and finally I agree it’s not very useful to use western music theory to describe music that has its own system in place, to people that don’t understand western theory anyway.
I’ll revert to just saying use your ear and get a teacher to learn flamenco properly, or move to Andalucía.
You were taught whole-half scales in flamenco? Never came up once for me. In my experience, if they're teaching something that's not diatonic or chromatic, it's taught as "that weird thing PdL did once".
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
You were taught whole-half scales in flamenco? Never came up once for me. In my experience, if they're teaching something that's not diatonic or chromatic, it's taught as "that weird thing PdL did once".
Chicuelo used it in his rumba on encuentro. It is called also symmetrical scale and it only has two “modes”. Whole tone and chromatic are also symmetrical but only have one “mode”. All three scales can be incorporated into flamenco or any music really if you know how, over altered dominant chords or diminished 7 chords, augmented chords, depending. The whole half scale contains 8 notes as mentioned, and just like any scale with more than 7 notes, you have to describe a low common denominator note that is used twice. In the case of Chicuelo usage it was in Taranta key, so I would spell the scale from F#:
F#-G -A-A#-B#-C#-D#-E
as you can see I use two A’s because in the key signature of Bm, or F#phrygian, the A is the variable note for the sake of harmony. The D# is the often heard Manuel de falla note, perhaps borrowed from mode two of melodic minor or Mode5 of harmonic major, depending on the variable A note usage. F and C already sharped in the key.
Which brings us to the exotic out note, the B#. Of course our brains are hard wired to think C natural which is the flat 5 over an F# chord after all. It’s our bluesy tritone, not un heard of in flamenco. Most theory knowledgeable folks already realize that even in blues or jazz context, the proper spelling of this note is #4 (or #11), not b5, and this case here is not that different. Anyway it works in flamenco, but my main point is there is at least one variable note at play, it’s not literally 8 different notes, just like the Spanish phrygian hybrid of natural and dominant phrygian modes. It comes down to really simple mathematics which if you want to reinvent you always find trouble.
So, it's "that weird thing Chicuelo did once"? I don't think I have his encuentro anymore. Will have to check and look at how he uses it. Is it more common than I think?
@El Burdo
quote:
Oh, now you say...
Sorry. In my mind the context was clear
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
Well you had already mentioned Paco. The end of his song Zyryab, after the open string trade offs uses the exact same scale over top of what is essentially mclaughlins meeting of the spirits vamp. They climb up that scale then a repeating phrase still based on the symmetric scale (g-F#-e-c#-d#-e, etc) and finally descends from the B# to conclude the song. Earlier in the song he improvised using the scale and quotes Manuel de Falla directly.
From :44 to 1:02
Although perhaps it’s rare to hear the B# used in this context often, the other parts of the symmetrical scale that pertain to the Falla sound are quite frequent in Flamenco generally speaking.
Earlier in the song he improvised using the scale and quotes Manuel de Falla directly
Could you give me a hint on which theme he's quoting? (Is it something he covered in the "interpreta a Manuel de Falla" CD?) Going back and listening to the whole song, I can hear the use of the scale but I'm missing the reference of the quote.
Do we have any idea who influenced whom in all of this? I mean, was it something that already existed in flamenco and Falla picked up from there, or was it something he picked up elsewhere and then it made its way into flamenco? Most of the classical composers that come to mind when I think diminished scale were contemporaries of his (Stravinsky, and to a lesser extent some of the French impressionists like Debussy or Ravel).
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
When asking the chicken vs the egg question you have to line up all the fossil record in order then decide which chicken and which egg specifically, it’s not easy to generalize. Obviously the modern flamencos got it from Falla, who was inspired by flamenco of his day so perhaps he heard it on the street. I have not noticed any early wax cylinder using f# por medio or c# por Arriba (D# here) but it could be there waiting for discovery.
I did check Ramon montoya and he uses the sound briefly here and there... the intro for malagueña uses the C# over E chord, but quickly switches to C nat for the F chord, and repeats, also the end of granaina ostenato picado over bass notes thing uses g# over B chord sound, and again changes to g nat over the C chord (he even uses e# there, 5 out of 8 notes from symmetrical scale haha!). Siguiriyas has the proper sound but it’s so brief:
Anyway flamenco is not modal, Harmonic minor doesn’t ever have Both a raised seventh and a lowered one.... and finally I agree it’s not very useful to use western music theory to describe music that has its own system in place, to people that don’t understand western theory anyway.
I’ll revert to just saying use your ear and get a teacher to learn flamenco properly, or move to Andalucía.
I agree, "it’s not very useful to use western music theory to describe music that has its own system in place, to people that don’t understand western theory anyway." but add that people who have a whole lot of western theory, classical, jazz, blues, whatever, seem to see flamenco through the filter of that theory background and can't hear or see that flamenco "has it's own system in place"
I agree, "it’s not very useful to use western music theory to describe music that has its own system in place, to people that don’t understand western theory anyway."
I could agree with that. But then you should not use historically and culturally loaded Western musical terminology. Once you do, then you have to begin defining terms, contextualizing socio-culturally and historically, and explaining why and how you are using a term analytically/metaphorically [cultural/musical/linguistic translation], among other things.
The best explanations are [in a studio for example]: "Here, do this! Also try this. You made a mistake but it worked. Let's figure out why! Hey dancer, in this situation the student wants to know if you prefer traditional escobilla or a falseta. This singer is Jaime and he doesn't like "extended" chords or substitutions. Good job today... see you next week!"
Or, "I am claiming that flamenco is phrygian tonal. Here are other practitioner/theorists who also make the same or a similar claims Here is my definition of tonality [for alternative or contradictory definitions see x, y, znd z]. Furthermore I am not claiming that flamenco is not characterized by certain "modal" fragments, gestures, and motifs. I will make clear what I mean by modality but an important point is that there is not an evolution from modal to tonal music [see Powers for an in depth discussion of definitions of modality, tonal types, and tonality]. I should note that my claims are open to further consideration and evolution as new studies and insights emerge in our understanding of cross-cultural translation, cultural appropriation and transculturation as it relates to flamenco practice, evolution, and theoretical explanation...bla bla bla bla. Let's begin with a few ideas such as scale, mode, modality, tonality, and key. Early flamenco is mostly diatonic. We will limit our scope to flamenco between 1920 and 1970. Before that melodies and accompaniment were still being developed and there are anomalies that should not be treated as deviations from some form, but rather, instances toward codification. Chromaticism can be explained with melodic theories, cases of secondary dominants, simple mixture...bla bla bla."
It's the wishy washy middle ground that is useless. THEORY IS NOT SOMETHING YOU LEARN AND VOILA, YOU'RE DONE. IT IS ALSO A PRACTICE THAT MUST BE CULTIVATED AND NURTURED THROUGH ANALYSIS, COMPOSITION, AND THE LEARNING OF NEW MATERIAL. My five cents...
Phrygian #6 scale? second mode of fixed/jazz melodic minor?
Only if the C natural is heard (por medio). I often hear the C# instead and that scale is mode 5 of harmonic major. If C is omitted it leaves ambiguity, which is fine because I’m after the Falla sound source which is more about the F# in context. Those two scales or even the symmetrical scale as I pointed out in montoya granaina, all three exploit the F# in context.
Thanks! Lots to digest there (well, for me at least ).
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
I agree, "it’s not very useful to use western music theory to describe music that has its own system in place, to people that don’t understand western theory anyway."
quote:
I could agree with that. But then you should not use historically and culturally loaded Western musical terminology. Once you do, then you have to begin defining terms, contextualizing socio-culturally and historically, and explaining why and how you are using a term analytically/metaphorically [cultural/musical/linguistic translation], among other things.
I'm not clear whether you are addressing this to Ricardo, who I quoted and agreed with, or me for agreeing with what he posted, or me for the extra comment I added.
Either way I don't understand what it means or what you are trying to say with it
"historically and culturally loaded Western musical terminology" ??
"contextualizing socio-culturally and historically" ??
"how you are using a term analytically/metaphorically [cultural/musical/linguistic translation]" ??
quote:
THEORY IS NOT SOMETHING YOU LEARN AND VOILA, YOU'RE DONE. IT IS ALSO A PRACTICE THAT MUST BE CULTIVATED AND NURTURED THROUGH ANALYSIS, COMPOSITION, AND THE LEARNING OF NEW MATERIAL.
whatever you are trying to say (and in this bit you seem to be stating the obvious) there really is no need to shout.
If you are addressing this post to me I don't really understand what your point is. I posted something above to the effect that phrygian flamenco is not explained by the harmonic minor.
the bottom line for me is the practise of flamenco players. I heard Gerardo Nuñez refer to phrygian as "major" (I can't remember whether it was "Granaína in B major" or "Soleá in E major") so for him E is the home chord and the defining base of the music por arriba (or A por medio, or B por Granaína, or whatever), however you want to theorize it from there.
I could agree with that. But then you should not use historically and culturally loaded Western musical terminology. Once you do, then you have to begin defining terms
Music theory seems a combination of actual theory using analytical tools and concepts, and sets of conventions mostly stemming from historical practices and various specific contexts. While the conventions cannot be applied en banc to flamenco, the analytical tools and concepts are transferrable and sufficient for analysis(*). Aren't they? I suspect you are saying a similar thing with the above - hence the call for explicit definitions of terms in flamenco context, etc.
(*) For example, the musical spaces are the same 12 equally tempered notes per octave; we can talk about triads, harmonic analysis; tonal vs. modal; etc.
I heard Gerardo Nuñez refer to phrygian as "major"
Lola Fernandez in her book "Flamenco Music Theory" refers to"Major-Phrygian" as a way to label the Flamenco tonality which is like phrygian but with a tonic triad which is major.
I was re-reading the book the other day after the recent discussions, and realized that she also talked about the II - I as the actual flamenco cadence, a 'closing cadence' I think she called it, which seemed a bit redundant, but in this case it was to distinguish it from her earlier naming of the whole iv - III - II - I as the flamenco cadence.
I heard Gerardo Nuñez refer to phrygian as "major"
Lola Fernandez in her book "Flamenco Music Theory" refers to"Major-Phrygian" as a way to label the Flamenco tonality which is like phrygian but with a tonic triad which is major.
I was re-reading the book the other day after the recent discussions, and realized that she also talked about the II - I as the actual flamenco cadence, a 'closing cadence' I think she called it, which seemed a bit redundant, but in this case it was to distinguish it from her earlier naming of the whole iv - III - II - I as the flamenco cadence.
Edward freeman transcribed por medio pieces, I believe, with three sharps. Basically as if the music was major key tonic, and used a gazillion accidentals. I was about 20 years old when I saw those scores, and still believe it’s a jazz perspective to do that. In that sense Andalusian or any other flamenco cadence is a simple sub for V7-I. I think it is messy but I don’t have a major problem with that. Another method could be less messy, analysis in A minor, again the cadence is using accidentals and a sub for V7-i, however we use the Picardy third all the time. Not much different than Bach’s G minor violin sonata that uses one less flat in the key signature than it should.
The cleanest thing is to allow for a relative phrygian key called “por medio” that shares key signature with F maj and D minor. However you also need a new system of Roman numerals similar to how the minor key required a new system to allow the v to be altered to V sometimes. It means you can allow for both i and I, however “I” uses an accidental, just like the Picardy third does in minor keys, and sometimes should be instead V/iv when it is used to pull to iv. Next you have to accept the II and the II7 to be allowed in place of the V7 use in minor keys. It is actually an important harmonic device used to modulate as we saw in “dissertation blues” Paco solea analysis. These two things are not ever done in classical theory classes. However I normally see a careless application of Roman numerals applied in place of scale degrees, ignoring the logic behind using them to describe secondary dominants and such in proper tonal fashion. For example in solea E7-Am-G7-C7...F-Dm-F7/Eb-E. I often see a description of I7-iv-III7-VI7...II-vii-II7-I.... and it is nonsensical. To do it right it would be V7/iv-iv-V7/VI-V7/II....II-vii-II4.2-I. Sure it looks odd but it preserves the logic behind doing that type of analysis for flamenco.
However I normally see a careless application of Roman numerals applied in place of scale degrees, ignoring the logic behind using them to describe secondary dominants and such in proper tonal fashion.
Just some thoughts.
I see scale degree roman numerals as a 'value-neutral' tool; it is just that, in applying to classical vs. flamenco, we could find different 'typical' progressions and closing cadences, i.e. the same/similar harmonic function could be served by a different progression. Maybe you are saying the same thing with the above and it just seems (to me) like you aren't.
Like the V-I in classical (major) vs. II-I in flamenco. Because the II degree in flamenco key is actually only a semitone up from I, II draws [down] to I very strongly. And in classical, V draws to I very strongly because(?) V contains the leading tone (and if V7 even more so as it contains a tritone, both notes of which are semitone up and down from root and 3rd in the tonic chord). So in flamenco we have an upper leading tone resolving down to root, whereas in classical a lower leading tone resolving up to root. That by itself is bound to create differences in how things sound and thus differences in harmonic function and typical progressions as notated by scale degree roman numerals.
The part I am still unclear about is the relationship between "how things sound" and the theory which should point out why and how/what scale degree chord sequence ought to sound this and that way in that different flamenco context.
So, in your comparison of the different ways to write up the chords (which I actually understand now!! I think!) let's take an example:
You compared E7-Am being written as I7-iv versus V7/iv-iv. I think you are saying that the first notation does not carry information about the two chords being an actual harmonic progression, and to show that I7 draws to iv in flamenco key, you wrote I up as a secondary dominant relative to the iv degree, thus V7/iv - which is the same chord E7, but showing an explicit relationship and pull towards iv. Except the pull is arguably shown because of the use of V-I (relative to iv degree of the original) - which is a classical thing.
So, do we have to try to find the typical classical progressions within the flamenco chord sequences, or are we free to explore what sounds like the various harmonic functions, but in flamenco context, and write these up as the flamenco progressions corresponding to each classical one. Or is it an addition rather than a replacement, so that the classical ones still apply, but we are adding unique flamenco ones.
Going back to V-I in classical vs. II-I in flamenco - is II-I a replacement of the V-I classical progression, or an addition. Ricardo, the way you notated via V/iv etc implies that you think V-I remains a valid tension-resolution progression in flamenco context. Is it? Maybe it is, the way it sounds, but for some reason V (and thus V-I) is not used much in flamenco proper (i.e. once we take out folk and ida y vuelta forms)?
I would be very interested to hear how different chord sequences in flamenco sound to you from your experience, what harmonic relationships you sense. I think these can still be notated in scale degree roman numeral notation. Also, don't por medio and por arriba have the same characteristics, apart from what the tonic note is - so we can just say "in flamenco key" - either por medio or por arriba - when talking about harmonic relationships?
Oh, and I mean above traditional flamenco, so nothing past 1970 or so.
Going back to V-I in classical vs. II-I in flamenco - is II-I a replacement of the V-I classical progression, or an addition.
It is really important to not draw to bold a line between classical and flamenco. We are talking about four centuries of pop/folk and "classical" guitar borrowing and stealing from each other. Outward appearances are deceiving when it comes to determining historical and musical DNA.
On that note, let's start with cadences. Cadences generally include two chords but can include more. THere is a hierarchy of cadences with some being more conclusive. A deceptive cadence is less conclusive that a PAC. Cadences are not limited to those that include the leading tone such as V-I or vii-I. Douglas Green also talks about some without the third such as VI-I and IV to I. THere is also the deceptive cadence. This is only a primer but by way of analogy, the flamenco period from about 1910ish to 1970 roughly parallels classical theory for the "classical" period [1750-1800 more or less].
A cadences most important quality from around 1750 to 1800 or so was its degree of finality. A PAC is more final than an IAC. An IAC can be more final that a PAC depending on the context of the PAC: is there perpetual motion that resolves the dissonance but continues movement, for example.
In modal music leading up to the Renaissance, the equivalent of a cadence was a clausulae. Some of these already looked like a "II-I cadence" in phrygian as it is realized in the period in question. F moves down to e and a moves to g or g#.
Many scholars have discussed the unique quality of phrygian gestures and related phenomena. Mark Ellis follows the augmented sixth chord across time. For our purposes I will only talk about solea.
In the soleares of the pillars there are no augmented sixths in the POR ARRIBA position until Sabicas. This is very important because there is a fuzzy set of chords that create dissonance that resolve to E or E7.
In classical harmony d-f-a, F-a-c, and b-d-f all function as pre-dominant chorlds, chords that lead to V. Since V is reinterpreted as the tonic in flamenco, these chords act as 'dominants." I have found instances in all of the pillars of these cadential movements. v-I [Dm-E], II-I [F-E], and v-I [Bhalfdim-E].
After 1970, you begin to see D# as part of the chord. This note results in augmented sixth chords, often in inversion. The diatonic extension of these chords is b-d-f-a-c. Compare that with the d#: b-d#-f-a-c. This combination accounts for all three augmented sixth chords; the French, German, and Italian.
The entire range b-d#-f-a-c is only one accidental from being an actual V. v in phrygian flamenco becomes Augmented sixth when the seventh scale degree is raised. In fact, F# is often a note of repose in a descent from a to g to f#, then f to e.
As noted, Sabicas has a French sixth in his solea. When we get to Paco there are numerous Aug6 chords.
As for sequences, the III chord in phrygian ia already the dominant of sixth and need not be notated as V/III. It is understood. I-iv-vii-III-VII-II-v-I works in flamenco. [E--Am--Dm--G(7)--C--F--bhalfdim} If every chord (except III) is treated with basic chromaticism you get a dominant chain with all Vs leading to the next. That does occur but if you are going to learn theory, choose musical examples and we can go through those. Otherwise, abstractions can lead to confusion.
On a final note, Ricardo brought up a great point about including the pre-pivot chord in analysis. It GENERALLY does not happen but exceptions abound in the music of BARRIOS!!!
So in flamenco we have an upper leading tone resolving down to root, whereas in classical a lower leading tone resolving up to root. That by itself is bound to create differences in how things sound and thus differences in harmonic function and typical progressions as notated by scale degree roman numerals.
Correct, for TRIADS. The major 7th II chord contains also the root, or common tone. But you need to now review the Aug6 Beato video. The dominant 7th version of the II chord is the exact same concept harmonically as the Aug6 practice. That being you misspell the flat 7 note for the sake of VOICE LEADING, that in fact advances UPWARD to the root the same as V7-I does. F7-E in solea for example, the Eb is respelled D#. In classical harmonic analysis you simple spell the chord from that note (D#FA), pretend it is always in first inversion (So F is in the bass, hence you hear the Aug6 interval), then decide if it has 5th or not in the voicing (Italian vs German), or the #11 in place of the 5th (French) and name it as such. For flamenco I argue we can simply take this practice and expand it to include the Spanish6th, which unlike the others takes on several different voicings, including those others or mixing them together, or allowing the leading tone into the bass, etc....AND....this is the important distinction... for FLAMENCO specific applications, allow it to function NOT as a secondary dominant, but as the PRIMARY cadence. It happens often enough IMO, even going back to early flamenco levante forms, or with simply the melody of the cante, that it can be used as away to bridge the divide between classical theory (only major or minor key analysis), vs what we have going on in flamenco.
The simple jazzy view is tritone sub. B7-E is changed to F7-E. You have common tone B natural with added #11, and leading tone D#, PLUS the C natural becomes the Upper leading that a B7(b9) uses, etc. Going back to classical analysis, this tritone sub concept would also legitimize analyzing solea as in the key of E major OR E minor, but like I said it gets messy because you have all the F natural to constantly deal with either as tritone subs or simply accidentals, meaning it misses a bigger picture.
quote:
So, do we have to try to find the typical classical progressions within the flamenco chord sequences, or are we free to explore what sounds like the various harmonic functions, but in flamenco context, and write these up as the flamenco progressions corresponding to each classical one. Or is it an addition rather than a replacement, so that the classical ones still apply, but we are adding unique flamenco ones.
The progressions are no different. The V-I normal thing happens in cante all the time, constantly. The case of V7/iv vs I7 has to do with the phrasing. The reason flamenco is also unique, outside of the harmony alone, is the remate or closing rhythmic statement. So a closing falseta that is done on the E chord, need not be seen as the V if the next falseta or whatever happens to start right on A minor. But certain phrases might begin on the E chord then move to the A minor later. Such as the opening of the cante por solea of frijones. It is a clear case for V/iv moving to iv. Next we have V/VI to VI...because we are not changing keys in the cambio, it goes G7 to C but we are in the middle of the verse...it’s not a key change. It’s a secondary dominant function in the bigger picture. The primary cadence is next F to E. If guitar plays the walking bass falseta from A minor right away after the conclusion of the letra, no need to look back at the resolve of the cante as the V leading to the falseta. If we were to re name it all in A minor, it still works out but the ending of cante and falsetas hang on V...and this is simply showing a distinction needs to be made between A minor and por Arriba IMO. So hopefully that also addresses your other points about frequency of V to I normally occurring in Flamenco phrygian forms vs other music. I used to point to siguiriyas as being more modal, less harmonic, but lately the singers like having the cambio when singing for baile, used as next to last phrase accompaniment , because it signals the llamada is a compas away. It’s not really “new”, I noticed Gerardo nunez do this for Indio Gitano as well.
quote:
Also, don't por medio and por arriba have the same characteristics, apart from what the tonic note is - so we can just say "in flamenco key" - either por medio or por arriba - when talking about harmonic relationships?
Yes, though they are guitar specific due to timbral differences. But using the terms por medio, por Arriba, por granaina, por Taranta, por minera etc....in addition to being guitar specific, they also are loaded with info that pertains to the circle of 5ths. Meaning we can allow for these forms to take on a special place on the wheel in regards to key signature, family of chords, scales etc etc. In other words a Bach fugue we see modulate from A minor to nearby E minor, and later D minor via simple addition of accidentals. Same case can be made for modulation between Granaina to Malagueña type phrases or the other way toward Taranta. And we also see this done with only one or two accidentals at a time in the flamenco guitar repertoire. Also parallel movements can take advantage of these extra form names. For example going from Por Arriba to E major is a jump of accidentals...but E major shares the key signature of minera, so this device comes in handy at times. I guess for a piano player, “flamenco key” is good enough for understanding what’s happening.
A few comments and also asking below for a few clarifications on numbers that seem wrong to me:
quote:
A cadences most important quality from around 1750 to 1800 or so was its degree of finality. A PAC is more final than an IAC. An IAC can be more final that a PAC depending on the context of the PAC: is there perpetual motion that resolves the dissonance but continues movement, for example.
I guess my expectation was that since these cadences from classical music practice are expressed as sequences, with scale degree chords, thus particular major (or minor) interval spacing is embedded in them, surely that matters as to how/why they sound the way they do.
So I would have thought that when you have instead scale degrees from a phrygian scale which has different interval spacing-to-scale degree relationship than major or minor, that would change the feel/sound of (some of?) the same scale degree chord sequences. I mean, say in major, the semitones are at III-IV and VII-I and the rest are whole tone intervals between scale degrees. But in phrygian, the semitones are at I-II and V-VI. Or does it somehow work out in triad chords so it is as if a cadence feel is invariant of the interval-degree spacing relationship underneath?
More generally, we should be able to forget the major/minor practice. The analytical tools should be enough to be able to construct what a phrygian tonality system and harmonic relationships are as if in an alternate universe where THAT was the prevalent common practice, composers still went by what felt /sounded good to them, and then someone analyzed it all and inferred 'rules' i.e. prevalent melody and harmony construction practices and classification of preferred cadences into various bins of resolution/strength.
CONTINUED:
quote:
I have found instances in all of the pillars of these cadential movements. v-I [Dm-E],
Do you mean here vii-I instead, for Dm-E?
quote:
As for sequences, the III chord in phrygian is already the dominant of sixth and need not be notated as V/III.
Do you mean here notated as V/VI, since you said "dominant of sixth"?
And from you 'Theory Thread':
quote:
a scale is an abstraction while a mode is a specific way of using the mode,
Do you mean here "a mode is a specific way of using the SCALE"?
THAT was the prevalent common practice, and composers went by what felt /sounded good to them, and then someone analyzed it all and inferred 'rules' i.e. prevalent melody and harmony construction practices and classification of preferred cadences into various bins of resolution/strength.
Flamenco is different than the classical guitar. However, emphasizing their differences without acknowledging their common threads and historical context is misleading.
The popular songs and the dances have always influenced the "refined composers. For example, the chacona was imported from the new world. It was always associated with the passacagli in early practice (see Hudson). It was a popular dance and was considered lewd by Sebastian de Covarrubias in his Spanish dictionary of 1611. Can you imagine a world without Bach's Chaconne. Without the simplistic Baroque guitar gestures and some of the dance's rhythmic aspects, there would be no Bach's Chaconne, and without "refined" music, tonal harmony and theory would never have developed.
Everyone borrowed fromd Arcas' Solea. It is well documented that some of the proto/flamenco guitarists played Arcas solea as a solo and new it well. Some of Arcas' "falsetas" are still around in some shape or form, either in slightly modified form or as models.
The question is, how can one use the culturally loaded concepts of common practice theory in new ways. This is not something new. There are tons of common practice theories. Rameau (scale-degree) and Riemann (function) are still with us and they are best used for about 1750 to 1880 or so. However, by the time you get to Beethoven and Chopin you already need new modifications. One is chromatic-transformation theory. You can also use jazz but to me "classical theory" should serve as the foundation because popular and folk, including flamenco, and "refined" guitars have the same evolutionary roots. It is called the Spanish guitar for a reason. Even the Italians, who were important in its developent, called it the "chitarra espagnola."
In the soleares of the pillars there are no augmented sixths in the POR ARRIBA position until Sabicas. This is very important because there is a fuzzy set of chords that create dissonance that resolve to E or E7.
In classical harmony d-f-a, F-a-c, and b-d-f all function as pre-dominant chorlds, chords that lead to V. Since V is reinterpreted as the tonic in flamenco, these chords act as 'dominants." I have found instances in all of the pillars of these cadential movements. v-I [Dm-E], II-I [F-E], and v-I [Bhalfdim-E].
After 1970, you begin to see D# as part of the chord. This note results in augmented sixth chords, often in inversion. The diatonic extension of these chords is b-d-f-a-c. Compare that with the d#: b-d#-f-a-c. This combination accounts for all three augmented sixth chords; the French, German, and Italian.
Why on earth would you say such a thing? Is it something you read or you simply never noticed it “before sabicas”, or worse “before 1970”??!!??
Ramon Montoya Faucher book Solea page 36 last line measure 3 (7,8,9 of compas cycle), next cycle page 37 top line, same spot in compas.... a rasgueado statement of the chord page 39 again same spot in the compas for the same darn harmonic reason.
In case you don’t have the book: 1:58, 2:03, 3:14
Examples to be found in all other phrygian key forms recorded by montoya.
Printable Version
I think!) let's take an example: 
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