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.
Flamenco Theory Track For BEGINNERS: in a logical sequence
Flamenco, in a form that we would probably recognize, has been around since 1880. Of course it extends back in time and I would day 1820 is a plausible date for the earliest hints of flamenco song. These dates are not randomly chosen. They are dates that show up in the neo-flamencological (scholarly version of flamencology with theory and method) literature including Hurtado Torres and Castro Buendia. By flamenco song I mean two main branches: the cante jondo, which many gitanos prefer to call the "cante gitano Andaluz," and the Cante Flamenco Andaluz, which includes mostly regional Fandango derivatives.
Why 1820? 1820 is arbitrary but it is also the date given for the birth of the Fado of Portugal. What does flamenco have to do with Fado? The Industrial revolution and the near-conquest of Europe by Napoleon made people uneasy. A European melancholy spread over Europe (Enrique Baltanas) and many European countries developed songs of sadness or yearning in the early eighteenth century. The "Romantic" literature is filled with implicit and explicit melancholy as well. The Iberian peninsula was no exception. But if melancholy and nostalgia were having an important moment in the early nineteenth century, lament songs can also be traced back to the Baroque.
Now, wait for it...the descending tetrachord became a signifier of lament in the Baroque. There is no direct evidence that it occurred in Spanish guitar treatisers first but most of the evidence points toward a Judeo-Arabic and Spanish origin. 17th century Italian writers complained of a woeful way of singing, foreign to Europe and introduced from Spain [Fuchs: Maurophilia].
Meanwhile, the descending tetrachord, very often used to signify lament, is also a trait of some early passacagli. The Mexican chacona gets imported to Spain where it gains in popularity and gets picked up, along with the passacaglio, by "refined" composers. The passacagli is not a genre at this time.
The passacagli is a gesture used to introduce a dance, give the singer his tone, allow time for the singer and or dancers to prepare, allow respiration for the singer, etc. Sound familiar?
I will include some history for each post and will try to begin the morning with the post
So, passacagli and falsetas as structural-functional gestures have common ancestry in the Baroque guitar.
Let's begin with mode and scale and then move on to falsetas, key, and tonality.
"Scale," "mode," and many other terms are loaded. Spain was/is a contact zone of multiple cultures and every culture has/had multiple conceptions that might roughly be translated as "mode" or "scale." Very roughly, mode ("Western"), raga (Hindi), and maqam (Arabic) map onto each other. A mode in this sense, in its nominal form, means a series of notes of a scale with particular norms, turns of phrase, gestures, and practices that give the mode its "color" or character.
A scale is an abstraction, a step-wise representation of the notes to be used and given a name. In Hindustani music thaat Bhairavi is not the same as raga Bhairavi. Thaat bhairavi is spelled e-f-g-a-b-c-d in a "movable do" system.
quote:
You can already sense the difficulties in translating or analogizing from culture to culture
Raga Malkauns is based on thaat Bhairav but omits the second "scale" degree. It is in this sense of mode that I base my sense of mode. Note that mode in this sense has nothing to do with harmony.
To bring this intro to mode and scale to a close, a scale is an abstraction while a mode is a specific way of using the mode, including the addition of chromatic tones or omission of some notes.
I would argue that the Montoya example is not in the phrygian mode. It is in flamenco octatonic with the raised third omitted until the final measure: it is implied. Others might insist it is in the phrygian mode. No problem. The other three examples are clearly flamenco octatonic. Ricardo, Sabicas, and Paco all omit one or the other third (natural or raised) according to whim. In the Sabicas I spell the third but in the paco I use the enharmonic equivalent.
Tomorrow: Fretboard Knowledge and Learning the Flamenco Octatonic In Practice and Theory.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to JasonM)
I take it you responded before I posted the musical examples?
Either way, your point is taken. However, whether one chooses to claim phrygian or flamenco octatonic, the raised third has to be theorized/explained. If you start with that, then you have to take the "classical theory" approach and claim one scale for harmony (phrygian dominant) and two scales for melodic (phrygian and/or phrygian dominant). With the flamenco octatonic you can explain all diatonic chords including the major tonic (E).
The question really is, "what is the best way to begin a discussion of melodic and harmonic content?" In my opinion, everyone talks past each other in the "Which Scales" thread because they are thinking phrygian, phrygian dominant, harmonic minor instead of beginning with fundamentals.
Fundamentals and cultural/socio-historical contextualization are the points of this thread.
Important flamenco related quote from above link: [“Tchaikovsky considered the augmented sixth chords to be altered dominant chords.[16] He described the augmented sixth chords to be inversions of the diminished triad and of dominant and diminished seventh chords with a lowered second degree (♭scale degree 2), and accordingly resolving into the tonic. He notes that, "some theorists insist upon [augmented sixth chord's] resolution not into the tonic but into the dominant triad, and regard them as being erected not on the altered 2nd degree, but on the altered 6th degree in major and on the natural 6th degree in minor", yet calls this view, "fallacious", insisting that a, "chord of the augmented sixth on the 6th degree is nothing else than a modulatory degression into the key of the dominant".[15]”
The example below shows the last nine measures from Schubert's Piano Sonata in A major, D. 959. In m. 352, an Italian sixth chord built on scale degree ♭scale degree 2 functions as a substitute for the dominant.]
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to Beni2)
quote:
I take it you responded before I posted the musical examples?
Either way, your point is taken.
Sorry, my comment was tongue and cheek. After all the back and forth over modes on the scale thread.
Btw I just remembered you are Romerito 2.0. I think the ethnomusicology refreshed my memory.
One thing I’ve found helpful from memorizing the Circle of Fiths is being able to quickly name the note on the adjacent string same fret. When first learning guitar, you learn that the guitar is tuned in 5ths/4ths - except for that one pesky string. It’s kind of obvious but I never see it talked about as an aid when navigating the fretboard or learning the notes on the fretboard.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to JasonM)
quote:
One thing I’ve found helpful from memorizing the Circle of Fiths is being able to quickly name the note on the adjacent string same fret. When first learning guitar, you learn that the guitar is tuned in 5ths/4ths - except for that one pesky string. It’s kind of obvious but I never see it talked about as an aid when navigating the fretboard or learning the notes on the fretboard.
Yep...also for chords in a key (chord scale and how the chords relate to each other), chord quality (major minor etc), modes, ORDER of sharps or flats are also laid out on fingerboard for same reasons, interval relations, basically the whole entire package is there....until you encounter those darn Aug6 chords. You see D#FAC and are like WTF?? It’s breaking the logic of the wheel...6th are major or minor NO SUCH THING as augment 6th, it’s just a minor 7 spelled wrong...and then you remember flamenco and say “oh ok, I see why they do that”. And then maybe you notice all the misspelled similar things in jazz for altered Dominants and say “oh, no wonder jazz sounds so out of key”.
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to mark indigo)
quote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)
Ugh. Wikipedia... Although, I will say, that is the most well-resourced wikipedia article I have ever seen.
Just read Harold Powers who is a source. He's published in some hard to get sources unfortunately but worth the read if you make it to your university library. Or, buy Thomas Christensens's Cambridge Hostory of Western Music Theory
Lesson 1: Fretboard and Notational s... (in reply to Beni2)
Just a quick note. You will have a theory whether you study thoery formally or not. Paco de Lucia had a theory, Riqueni has a theory, you will have a theory. Theories are explanations for how the world is and fall into two basic categories: folk and scientific. Not gonna define those here but music theory seems to fall somewhere in the middle. It does not predict like a scientific theory yet it can explain things, make explicit, what folk theories often leave unarticulated.
So, to begin, I am reposting the graphic I was going to talk about yesterda along with another.
If you want to learn theory, you have to learn several things but let's start with the notes on your fretboard and the notational system.
The first graph shows only the notes on the fretboard. The second graph is super cool. It is what cognitivie scientists call a blended conceptualization. The idea is that you map one representation onto another. In this case, the notational system is mapped onto the strings of the guitar. This implicitly also maps standard notation onto the tablature system. Don't ask! Memorize...baby steps.
This might take awhile so we will go over other stuff while you are memorizing. I suggest not memorizing linearly. It easy to look at the sixth string and go "the open string is e, then f, then f#/gb, etc." I would (I did) make flash cards of each fret and quiz yourself: "5th fret 4th string??? uhh, 'g.' 5th fret 6th string = 'a.'" When you are comfortable, use random flash cards; 6th fret 'b' string = c#/db, etc.
These posts will be two to three times a week instead of everyday. That will give you time to internalize info and it will give me time to post flamenco examples in tab/notation, audio, and/or video.
Laters [it's a New Mexico thing].
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to Beni2)
Thnks for sharing this with us. But my question is:
Is your post music theoretically sound? Or is it your own explanation of what it should/might have been?
As for the fretboard map, I read somewhere that one should use the notes with no sharps and flats as reference notes. Let these reference notes guide you across the entire fretboard. Open strings EADGBE is a starting point. I think it's the best way to orientate on the fretboard.
quote:
Fundamentals and cultural/socio-historical contextualization are the points of this thread.
I know it's off topic, but worth mentioning here.
It's fascinating that 2 very similar art of music (blues and flamenco) started evolving entirely independent of each other on 2 different continents at the same time under similar circumstances.
A few comparisons. Feel free to add other similarities
Flamenco / Blues ------------------- falsetas / breaks major 3rd in Phrygian mode / blue note cantes a palo seco / worksongs
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
I read somewhere that one should use the notes with no sharps and flats as reference notes
Maybe as a starting point to get a handle on things. But at some point you should drop those reference notes IMO, just like you'd drop training wheels. For instance, if you're playing in F sharp, your only note without an accidental is the perfect fourth (B). It wouldn't make much sense trying to navigate the fretboard in that key by using notes without accidentals as reference.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to Piwin)
quote:
It wouldn't make much sense trying to navigate the fretboard in that key by using notes without accidentals as reference.
Once you know/memorize the location of all the notes with no sharps and flats, every half step above these reference notes, except for E, are the notes you're searching for. For the note E, you have to move 2 half steps up to the F#. B note is B note because it's used as a reference note. So it does make sense.
It's just one of the ways to navigate the fretboard.
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
It's just one of the ways to navigate the fretboard
Yes, I agree. It's a useful way to learn the fretboard. But if you can't figure out where the accidental notes are without reference to the other notes, if you haven't internalized all the positions and notes both in your head and fingers, then you just don't know your fretboard enough yet and you're still learning. I still have doubts sometimes in the 9-12 fret territory and work it out like you by reference to other notes. That's not ideal. I should be able to not have to think about it at all. That's the target.
_____________________________
"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."
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
Once you know/memorize the location of all the notes with no sharps and flats, every half step above these reference notes, except for E, are the notes you're searching for. For the note E, you have to move 2 steps up to the F#.
no, E moves one half step up too, it’s called “E#”. Just so happens to be a piano white key. Truly the reference is simply, you play F scale a half step up, so your understood “Bb”, only flat in F, simply becomes B natural. This is why you need to learn the circle of 5ths.
And whoever created that ridiculous fretboard map posted above with enharmonic note names, reveals their limited understanding of the Circle of 5ths by their glaring omission of Fb and Cb. It’s like here kids let’s learn how to color, these are all the colors you need from the rainbow...and the box of crayons is missing red and blue because, after all purple is there and should be good enough, along with orange and green, to infer their redundant existence.
Furthermore, double sharps actually exist if you want to play in any minor keys with more sharps than G#minor has, so it might be good to know where those are on the fingerboard too.
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
no, E moves one half step up too, it’s called “E#”. Just so happens to be a piano white key. Truly the reference is simply, you play F scale a half step up, so your understood “Bb”, only flat in F, simply becomes B natural. This is why you need to learn the circle of 5ths.
You're right. Actually, there are 2 notes with no sharp in F# or Gb major scale (B and F).
I remember calculating lots of derivations of a complex formula or an equation in school. At the end of the day, all these were useless. What counts is the end product (formula or an equation) and what we can do with it.
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
Actually, there are 2 notes with no sharp in F# or Gb major scale (B and F)
No, there is only one: B. There is no F natural in this scale, only E sharp. You can approach it as a rule of thumb in music notation that you don't use the same letter twice to write out a scale/key. So you could write down the full series of letters (ABCDEFG) and then you create your scale by adding accidentals. So for F sharp major, I would write F G A B C D E F then apply accidentals: F# G# A# B C# D# E# F# Writing the scale as F# G# A# B C# D# F F# would be incorrect. Think of the key signature on sheet music. If your 7th degree is "F" and your 1st degree is F#, then what are you going to write in the key signature? You'd have a nasty overlap there. If you write the 7th degree as E#, then it's all clear. That's also how you end up with double accidentals. For instance if you're playing in G# harmonic minor, the 7th degree is an F## (or F𝄪), following that same logic: G# A# B C# D# E F## G# It's just much clearer than having two different Gs in the scale. Note that it can also change how a musician interprets the written score. For example, in G# minor, if I see the composer wrote D## instead of E in a particular place, then I know he's trying to draw my attention to the fact that it's an augmented 5th and not a minor 6th and that is relevant to the piece.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to Piwin)
Thnks for clarification. But this is for the sake of a music notation. Right? Somehow I believe this is something like "one has to have heard that once" stuff.
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
Yes and no. Yes because it does make music notation much clearer.
No because there are very real implications for how you intonate. If you stayed very strictly in equal temperament, then there wouldn't be any difference between, say E sharp and F, and I guess you could then say it's just about music notation. But equal temperament sacrifices "good" intonation to a certain extent and so musicians will often take some steps away from equal temperament. The difference in pitch between a note in equal temperament and in just intonation will depend on the interval and, if it we bring it all back to the root note, on the scale degree.
For instance, a major third is sharper in equal temperament than it is in just intonation. So you'll find that in certain situations, for instance if the third is a sustained note (as opposed to just played over quickly), then musicians might play it slightly flatted so it's closer to just intonation. So if they're playing a C sharp major chord in the key of C sharp, you could expect the E sharp, which forms a major 3rd interval with the root, to be played slightly flatted compared to equal temperament. On the other hand, if they're playing an F major chord in the key of F, then as the F is the root note there would be no difference here between just intonation and equal temperament, and so they won't flatten it. The E sharp and F in these two situations are not enharmonic. Close, but not quite.
Ricardo gave a great explanation of how to play in tune here (starting around 12:00). Not all of it is directly related to what we're talking about here but note that everything he's doing is "relational". Whether he choses to flatten or sharpen depends on the position of the note relative to another. At the very beginning he flattens the G sharp because he's playing it as the major third from E. But if he were playing that same string same fret relative to another note, he may not have flattened it. That's also why I think something like what mt1007 posted is a better way to learn the fretboard than just looking at it linearly because his approach focuses on the relationship between notes.
_____________________________
"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."
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: The Historically and Culturally ... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
Thnks for clarification. But this is for the sake of a music notation. Right? Somehow I believe this is something like "one has to have heard that once" stuff.
No, there is a simple basic math logic to why you need to spell things correctly. When you understand WHY you shouldn’t carelessly misspell E# as F, than you are a step closer to understanding the implications of the circle of 5ths as a tool. Pwin basically explained it already, I would simply add that another way to look at it is that from your new vantage point of “F# major” and how everything in this musical world is related and is going to function, “F natural” no longer exists. If you encountered one it means something is wrong, or you have jumped to a different place musically. There are times when yes we deliberately misspell something a BECAUSE we want to create these quantum jumps musically for exotic sounding reasons, however you won’t grasp the logic there either if you don’t understand how to spell things correctly to begin with.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Flamenco Theory Track For BEGINN... (in reply to El Burdo)
quote:
An example I occasionally encounter is when I wish to write a minor third, for example, at Ab. This will of course give Cb. Do the blowers want this? No, they do not. They want to see B.
I totally respect the practice of jazz musicians to use the key signature of C major for EVERYTHING, since they want to substitute in for each chord their modes of choice, each chord of a CHART is an island unto itself, I get it. (My second favorite musician of all time, john mclaughlin, in his instructional DVD spells E phrygian dominant in chapter 7 as EFAbABCD, with not a care in the world!! LOL)That is part of what I call the “discipline” of jazz. I also respect the idea that when it comes to part writing, for the sake of sight reading, there are times to misspell things deliberately since the instrumentalists, (and sight SINGERS of course!! ), who are playing one little note at a time don’t need to worry about the vertical harmonic structures movement and bigger picture. Indeed the Aug6 deal I’ve annoyed you with is a direct result of this type of misspelling for the exact same reason...ease of read ability, leaving “theorists” the problem to sort out later.
I will say there are times it’s better to use the CORRECT spelling as well in same context...for example a fast diatonic note sequence running up or down a scale, since you keep your accidental in the single measure, regardless of key sig, it would be weird to deal with alternating Bb and B naturals in such a speedy run when sight reading. Seeing say a fast alternating Bb and Cb, like a rhythmic trill, they only need to deal with the unpleasant accidentals once then the sequence of notes up and down or whatever are easy to read.
In regard to your “barbwire fence” or “nobody would write in G#major” comments, well, your life would have been a bit easier if you hadn’t shunned the proper study of the circle 5ths IMO (since your comments reveal you don’t give a crap about it). It hurts not at all, the jazz discipline to understand it as well.
(PS if you actually think G#major is a key that exists, well, I can easily understand why you think it’s ok to have a Gnat in A harmonic minor! )
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