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: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to BarkellWH)
I think it's not only possible, but in fact likely that we will never know exactly "why" it's called flamenco.
I just read in Jose Manuel Gamboa's "La Correspondencia de Sabicas" a citation from the Argentinian newspaper "La Nacion" saying the flamenco troupe Sabicas belonged to was to perform in Buenos Aires on April 28, having departed Marseille on 5 April 1937. Why do I find this interesting? A couple of months ago I read in Angel Alvarez Caballero's "Toque Flamenco" that Sabicas departed from Lisbon in 1936 with Carmen Amaya's troupe. According to Gamboa, Amaya had been performing to sold out houses in Buenos Aires since December, 1936 when Sabicas first appeared in the city at least three months later.
Also Gamboa publishes a long list of socialist and communist organizations for whom Sabicas performed in benefit concerts in Madrid in 1936, including during the siege by the Nationalists. Sabicas' brother Diego is quoted saying Sabicas stayed away from Spain for fear of politcal repercussions.
However, Sabicas himself is quoted during his return to Spain in the 1980s saying his absence was not an exile, he left because he had contracts overseas. He repeats on more than one occasion that he knows nothing whatsoever about politics.
If the history of such a prominent figure as Sabicas is the subject of utterly contradictory accounts by recognized authorities, a century after the public appearance of flamenco, why should we expect to find a definitive answer to why it began to be called "flamenco" nearly 200 years ago?
It's an interesting question. Some information is available. Permit me to doubt that a definitive answer will ever be found.
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
I think I summed up the gist of your post with the last line of mine, repeated here, to which yours was in response: "But unless and until we have primary source material that answers the question 'why,' speculation is all we are left with."
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: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
you have to explain what is “Flemish” (since that is what the word means) about flamenco cante, Baile, and or guitar
"Volando voy, volando van Gogh".
_____________________________
"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: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
what is “Flemish” (since that is what the word means) about flamenco cante, Baile, and or guitar.
Nothing. As we know, flemish/flamenco hypothesis says gitanos were nicknamed flamenco first. Later it's been used for the music of gitanos. So the answer to the question why lies obviously not in the music (cante, baile or guitar).
kitarist has a plausible explanation on page 2.
quote:
I recall reading in several articles that at some point a group of gypsies came into Spain from Flanders bearing a letter signed by some Flemish noble requesting safe passage be granted and they be treated fairly etc. etc. - the letter bearing was a thing at the time for travelling people.
These gypsies then became to be referred to as [being] 'flamenco' - which was the word for 'Flemish' already in existence in Spain - by conflating where they came from and their Flemish letter with who they were.
Another plausible explanation is according to a spanish poet José Manuel Caballero Bonald, the nickname flamenco was guasa - ironic humor, which is very common in Andalusia.
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
As we know, flemish/flamenco hypothesis says gitanos were nicknamed flamenco first. Later it's been used for the music of gitanos.
This hypothesis is in error due to the fact it is only in a specific tiny region of Andalucia they are referred to as such. Gypsies outside of that small sliver of geography were not referred to as “flamenco”, not back then and not today either. The only “flamenco” nicknamed gypsies are the ones from the same geography where, by no coincidence, they sing dance or plays guitar a certain peculiar style of music. So far there has been no evidence to the contrary. Including G. Borrow who makes the general statement that gitanos are confused for Germans or Flemings, and follows this general statement with two long books of interactions with people, (gypsy and non gypsy) where no such thing ever actually happens….only in a couple of lyric sets (we don’t know if poems or music letras, however, acquired in SEVILLA) does he demonstrate that thing. I feel it is very clear that people, gypsy or NOT GYPSY, are called flamenco, and it is not because they are confused for Germans or Flemings, but because they perform that peculiar music, and ONLY for that reason.
RE: Flamenco-related Timeline 1740 -... (in reply to devilhand)
quote:
kitarist has a plausible explanation on page 2.
No, we are way past that and have agreed that that made no sense.
We may not yet know definitively why/how flamenco music and its practitioners in Andalusia started being referred as flamenco(s), but we do know enough to eliminate a lot of the previously-raised hypotheses and to narrow the range of years when the borrowing of 'Flemish' to create this new meaning happened, as the subsequent many pages of posts show if you read them.
Once you think through it and examine the documentary evidence, it is quite obvious that "people, gypsy or NOT GYPSY, are called flamenco, and it is not because they are confused for Germans or Flemings, but because they perform that peculiar music, and ONLY for that reason", as Ricardo summarizes above. The music is the primary or defining reason, and that remains true to this day as a meaning of the word.
As to when it happened, again based on documents, we are down to a very narrow time period:
In the 1841-published 'The Zincali' Borrow quotes that poem/letra with the phrase "Flamenca de Roma" which he heard during his 1836-1839 travels writing the book - so at that time this new meaning still required clarification; it was not established enough to have no need for adding 'but we are not talking about Flemish things'. Similarly, about the same reference, in the 1845-published “Carmen” novella by Prosper Merimée, he clarifies in a footnote this is not about Flemings or people from Rome (*).
And then, on Jun 6, 1847, newspaper “El Espectador” in Madrid has a notice about 'Un cantante Flamenco' (in that case performed by gitanos) without the need for any clarifications, as if that second and very different meaning of 'Flemish' is settled business. This is a period of barely 10 years or so.
Why then - somewhere between the mid-1830s to mid-1840s - did 'flamenco''s second distinct meaning become firmly established? One correlation is with the time when cafe cantantes showcasing this new music got popular - the first one apparently in Ronda, in 1834. It seems tempting plausible that the explosion of the new fashion of public cafe cantante performances of flamenco starting in the mid-1830s was the catalyst for establishing that borrowed name for the new art in the public mind within a time span of just ten years. (Still not clear why 'Flemish', though).
(*) Keeping in mind the idea that 'flamenco' acquired its second meaning to refer to the music first, and hence to its practitioners, one might ask "but then isn't calling someone 'Flamenca de Roma' showing that it was referring to just a group of people?" I'd like to answer that it is not proof of that by itself since that reference is to a particular gitana - who would have been a flamenco art practitioner (i.e. it is not a contradiction with the 'music was primary' idea).
Taking 'flamenca [de Roma]' to refer to all the gitano people was an additional assumption by Borrow and other foreigners (Merimée just follows Borrow) - and I think that interpretation was wrong.
In fact, we have two levels of misinterpretation or errors in categorization - that (1) it generally refers to a group of people, and (2) it generally refers to gitano people - both wrong. What Borrow didn't or couldn't realize because of not enough context is that it is a specific reference to a sub-group defined by a different criterion: these people - who happen to have been gitanos in that instance but didn't have to be - were only called that IF they were practitioners of the art of flamenco.
Gypsy migration before the XVth century (in reply to kitarist)
I will be posting a few things after doing lots of further reading. I was trying to understand better the timeline of gypsy migration into Europe and into Spain as well as to clarify for myself other parts of the subsequent puzzle.
First, a short timeline of gypsy migration before the fifteenth century. I emphasize the port of Modon, a busy staging area on the Peloponnese peninsula in Greece for pilgrims and other travellers, as it had a large 'gypsy suburb' in the 14-15th centuries. It seems that that came to be referred to as 'little Egypt' and it was where the first groups of travelling gypsies into Western Europe came from. The groups ' chiefs also referred themselves as 'so and so of [little] Egypt' or at least did not discourage it.
Next I'll post a much longer timeline and summary of gypsy migration in Western Europe in the 15th century; the letters of safe passage make an appearance then.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Gypsy XVth century migration through... (in reply to kitarist)
The travelling gypsy groups possess letters of safe passage obtained from Emperors/Kings or the Pope which also state their story that:
• To atone for their previous pagan ways before converting to Christianity, they have been sentenced to roam the lands for seven (or five) years like refugees or pilgrims, and to visit the holy sites; • Whoever meets them has to take them in as guests and offer them food and shelter; • They are led by Chiefs who call themselves Dukes or Counts or Princes or Earls; • They are exempt from the laws of the land; instead, any infractions would be dealt with within their own tribal laws by their chiefs;
The first set of such letters was obtained from Emperor Sigismund of Hungary and Germany in 1417, valid until 1424. (Scholarship pinpoints that the meeting must have happened in Lindau on lake Constance, some 40 km across the lake from the town of Constance where the Emperor was from Jan 27, 1417 till the end of the Council of Constance in Apr 1418.) The second set of letters (as the first one neared expiry) was obtained in 1422 from the Pope, for further five years, valid until 1427.
We can follow the journey of the original group of some 400-500 gypsies through surviving documents describing the encounters, from 1417 to the 1440s. The group was led by Dukes Michael and Andrew; later on Count/Earl Thomas gets named. In the second half of the century other groups with their chiefs or descendants of the first group show up in the records.
From 1417 to 1422 we see the original group with Michael and Andrew or it split into two groups, travelling through Germany, Flanders, the Nether lands, France, then merging again into one group in Rome in 1422 where they are granted a second set of letters of safe conduct/passage by the Pope.
In Jan 1425 the first group recorded to enter Spain, from France, is that of ‘Don Johan’, followed four months later by a second group led by Count Thomas; both to Saragossa. Don Johan is recorded back on the Peloponnese peninsula by 1444.
Between 1425 and 1435 groups led by Thomas and/or Andrew show up generally north of Spain, in what is now France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany, but in 1435 Count Thomas is back in Spain, received in Olite.
July 9, 1447 is a notable date on which a very large group of gypsies arrive in Barcelona. They are led by the aforementioned Duke Andrew and Count Thomas as well as by Counts Martin and Paul.
1462 marks the first recorded visit to Andalusia, to Jaen, with a group led by Counts Thomas and Martin.
All in all, from 1425 to 1491 there are about 30 letters of safe passage issued to the travelling gypsies in Spain by Spanish nobles/kings, the last one being in 1491, granted by Ferdinand the Catholic and mentioned in a record from Sevilla receiving a group led by Counts Jacob and Luis.
In the timeline below, yellow highlights are Spanish cities. Other highlights or font colours follow specific chiefs. Just to clarify, after about 1450 I've included only Spanish encounters as this is our focus here. There are other encounters all over Europe in the late 15th century and beyond which I have not included.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Gypsy XVth century migration thr... (in reply to kitarist)
quote:
To atone for their previous pagan ways before converting to Christianity, they have been sentenced to roam the lands for seven (or five) years like refugees or pilgrims, and to visit the holy sites;
Sentenced by whom? The Catholic pope and the emperor? Sounds more like they just wanted them to move on lol. Why were they migrating in the first place?(ie why did they arrive in a position geographically to receive the letters? I guess it is clear why the leaders wanted them moving out of town).
And I guess if the first group to Sevilla had safe passage from Catholic king in his own land, then the story about coming Flanders to sevilla no longer makes sense?
RE: Gypsy XVth century migration thr... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Sentenced by whom?
Like I said it's their story, and it is a cover story all elements of which are important, justifying and normalizing for others a wandering way of living in the sedentary world that they encounter on their travels. It also fit very well in the 15th century given the large amounts of refugees from various places and of pilgrims travelling great distances for religious reasons. Even the part about not be judged by the laws of the land they are in but by their own chiefs has a purpose - this means any of them caught taking (stealing in the eyes of the hosts) animals or food or other items have to be released to their chiefs. Pretty smart.
To answer your other question, if you look at the totality of this timeline, to me it is clear that the claim about them first coming to Spain from Flanders (and thus some confusion on origin) makes no sense.
Next I will post about their life in Spain under anti-gypsy legislation in the 16th-18th centuries and the role of the 'other letters' as well as of the unique set of circumstances to do with Andalusia.
@tf10music: Yes that one is important; also many other articles, books or theses.
Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries: an... (in reply to kitarist)
First, a brief timeline of some events of relevance and of major anti-gypsy legislation.
Next, what letters of privilege were and their effect in combination with other factors in terms of gitanos settling in Andalucia and especially Cadiz province.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to kitarist)
I was thinking more about this and found out the lists of towns on the 1717 (41) and the additional 1746 (33) edicts for forced relocation of gypsies; BTW, it turns out Ubeda was listed on both, thus it is 74 towns total, not 75 as typically reported.
For Andalucia, this is 7 towns on the first list, and additional 9 on the second list, for a total of 16.
I also found a nice map showing the 54 (out of 74) towns that were targeted in the 1749 Great Raid. All 16 forced-relocation towns in Andalucia were included in the raid.
However, because a lot of places that had gitano populations - apparently allowed to live there due to various privileges - were not part of any of these lists, the roundup in 1749 did not affect them - including major flamenco places considered its birthplace - Cadiz, Jerez.
Sevilla and Granada were part of the raid/roundup, also Ronda, Jaen; but e.g. Malaga, Lebrija, Utrera, Moron, Almeria, weren't.
It is very interesting. How does it all (including above posts) relate to the emergence of flamenco as art and as a label for it - or is it all just curious coincidences?
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to kitarist)
My opinion is that a couple points of interest to look into regarding the gitano timeline and flamenco are the history and geography of the gitanos and bullfighting profession (obviously the story there will tell about class differences and possibly some part of the flamenco story can be deduced), of which we know the butcher profession is linked for obvious reasons (carniceros), but how far back does that story go? Also, at what point in time did the flamenco indoctrinated gitanos travel OUT of Andalucia to carry their traditions to Madrid, Barcelona, and ultimately, Southern France? These seeming minor details should be known by some sort of historic records, but I don’t remember reading anything about it specifically.
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
My opinion is that a couple points of interest to look into regarding the gitano timeline and flamenco are the history and geography of the gitanos and bullfighting profession
The book by Félix Rodríguez Gutiérrez, "El Arte en la Sangre" discusses the importance of the Matadero de Cádiz and includes an arbol genealogico of the Ortega-Diaz families (the family of Caracol), most of whom were cantaores, bailores or matadores. Of course, Enrique el Mellizo worked in the Matadero and was puntillero with varios matadores.
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to Morante)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Morante
quote:
My opinion is that a couple points of interest to look into regarding the gitano timeline and flamenco are the history and geography of the gitanos and bullfighting profession
The book by Félix Rodríguez Gutiérrez, "El Arte en la Sangre" discusses the importance of the Matadero de Cádiz and includes an arbol genealogico of the Ortega-Diaz families (the family of Caracol), most of whom were cantaores, bailores or matadores. Of course, Enrique el Mellizo worked in the Matadero and was puntillero with varios matadores.
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Also, at what point in time did the flamenco indoctrinated gitanos travel OUT of Andalucia to carry their traditions to Madrid, Barcelona, and ultimately, Southern France? These seeming minor details should be known by some sort of historic records, but I don’t remember reading anything about it specifically.
K. Meira Goldberg has some material in her book about flamenco's entry into Southern France as a cultural phenomenon in the 19th century -- not necessarily as the product of Andalusian Gitanos resettling there, but instead being involved in fairs and concert series.
RE: Gypsy XVth century migration thr... (in reply to kitarist)
quote:
@tf10music: Yes that one is important; also many other articles, books or theses.
I'd be very curious to learn about some of the other sources that you've consulted! I know of one promising book written in Spanish (Historia del pueblo gitano en España by David Martín Sánchez) that I haven't managed to buy yet and a couple of articles by María Sierra Alonso and Alejandro Martínez Dhier, but apart from that stuff, the Pym is the main source that I've relied on
RE: Gypsy XVth century migration thr... (in reply to tf10music)
quote:
I'd be very curious to learn about some of the other sources that you've consulted! I know of one promising book written in Spanish (Historia del pueblo gitano en España by David Martín Sánchez) that I haven't managed to buy yet and a couple of articles by María Sierra Alonso and Alejandro Martínez Dhier
Yes, "Historia del pueblo gitano en España" is one, though a significant part of that one goes beyond the 18th century which wasn't useful for our purposes.
Bernard Leblon (and references therein) is a significant source - several books: 'Los gitanos de Espana'; 'Gypsies and flamenco'; "El Gran Fichero de los Gitanos de España (siglos XV a XVIII)". Also many articles.
"Spanish Society, 1348–1700" by Teofilo Ruiz, 2017.
"Escritos sobre gitanos", 2010, by Antonio Gomez Alfaro, also the article "The Great Gypsy Round-up in Spain" by him.
Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society the first couple of volumes from 1888-1890 or so.
Karin White in 'Golden Horn' Journal of Byzantium.
Ronald Lee "Romani translator, author and educator", writings at Kopachi.com
Nathalie Manrique's dissertation and articles.
Juan Gamella's articles.
"Gitanos la historia olvidada" special issue, 2017, in Andalucía en la historia.
Felix Grande.
"Breve recopilación sobre la historia del Pueblo Gitano" by Jesus Maria Aparicio.
María Helena Sánchez Ortega
Rosamaria Cisneros-Kostic's Master's.
Alejandro Martinez Dhier's dissertation.
Hancock, I. (2006) article 'On Romani origins and identity'.
BTW, there is a brand new book, published 2021, called "Nueva historia del flamenco" by Juan Vergillos. I was about to get it, then found a review of it by Guillermo Castro who basically demolishes it, here: http://www.sinfoniavirtual.com/libros/081.php . Then I realized that the book is essentially a publication of Vergillos's dissertation from 2019, available here: http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/16993 .
RE: Gypsy XVth century migration thr... (in reply to kitarist)
quote:
Yes, "Historia del pueblo gitano en España" is one, though a significant part of that one goes beyond the 18th century which wasn't useful for our purposes.
Bernard Leblon (and references therein) is a significant source - several books: 'Los gitanos de Espana'; 'Gypsies and flamenco'; "El Gran Fichero de los Gitanos de España (siglos XV a XVIII)". Also many articles.
"Spanish Society, 1348–1700" by Teofilo Ruiz, 2017.
"Escritos sobre gitanos", 2010, by Antonio Gomez Alfaro, also the article "The Great Gypsy Round-up in Spain" by him.
Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society the first couple of volumes from 1888-1890 or so.
Karin White in 'Golden Horn' Journal of Byzantium.
Ronald Lee "Romani translator, author and educator", writings at Kopachi.com
Nathalie Manrique's dissertation and articles.
Juan Gamella's articles.
"Gitanos la historia olvidada" special issue, 2017, in Andalucía en la historia.
Felix Grande.
"Breve recopilación sobre la historia del Pueblo Gitano" by Jesus Maria Aparicio.
María Helena Sánchez Ortega
Rosamaria Cisneros-Kostic's Master's.
Alejandro Martinez Dhier's dissertation.
Hancock, I. (2006) article 'On Romani origins and identity'.
BTW, there is a brand new book, published 2021, called "Nueva historia del flamenco" by Juan Vergillos. I was about to get it, then found a review of it by Guillermo Castro who basically demolishes it, here: http://www.sinfoniavirtual.com/libros/081.php . Then I realized that the book is essentially a publication of Vergillos's dissertation from 2019, available here: http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/16993 .
This is great stuff, thanks so much! I heard about the Vergillos book, but based on the description, I spent my money on one of Curro Albaicín's books (now out of print) instead. There have been a couple of vaguely intriguing flamenco books published in the last few years, some better than others. I think that a decent percentage of the new publications emerges as a result of attempts at disciplinary reinvention -- i.e., analyzing the existing information using to concepts that exist in anthropology versus understanding that same info using concepts that exist within philosophy, etc. I'm not sure if the Vergillos book is doing that kind of thing or not, but I'll be curious to have a look at the dissertation you linked
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
history and geography of the gitanos and bullfighting profession (obviously the story there will tell about class differences and possibly some part of the flamenco story can be deduced)
As I was browsing the thesis archive of Sevilla U, I came across this dissertation from 1994:
Flamenco is specifically mentioned in the Table of Contents in chapters 5, 10, and 11. I haven't examined it beyond that but it appears it and/or references therein might be useful.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to kitarist)
Thanks. I wanted to touch on the “new history of flamenco” you mentioned, I wasted some frustrating time there. Yes Castro Buen Dia had a good critique. The worst statement there, “why is Arcas not flamenco but Silverio is?” Reminds me of several arguments in the past on Foro.
The bullfight thing there was not real helpful, I am looking not for simile and metaphor, but of some concrete connections. So I have this so far…Francisco Romero (1700-63) is considered the first to make killing the bull on Foot with a specific death blow, and since it was only (supposedly) elites on horse back showing off with the lance, he is the first “pro”. So it was with him that the “arte” starts taking shape. So I can’t find a free copy of the geneology in Cadiz that Morante alluded to in that book (I might have to buy it), but I don’t know if Francisco Romero was gypsy or not….but I believe he learned the death blow from the butchers who were probably those gitanos that owned the shop. They would have taught him what knife to use and how to deliver the kill. So the connection to the gitano butchers could very well be the musical connection too (assuming gitano butchers are carrying the flamenco cante tradition already at that time).
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
I don’t know if Francisco Romero was gypsy or not…
I am guessing you've seen these, but just in case, there are a couple of places where short biographies of him are presented, with a portrait. Neither mentions him as a gitano; in one he is a shoemaker's apprentice (like Antonio Chacon); the other makes him a carpenter's.
This is a book which might interest you. His view is that the connection with America is resposible for most of the formas flamencas: controversial, but Faustino has mucho prestigio.
This is a book which might interest you. His view is that the connection with America is resposible for most of the formas flamencas: controversial, but Faustino has mucho prestigio.
Thank you, Morante. Hmm, yes, he does have mucho prestigio... but what I see from scanning the article talking about the book is that he seems to be fighting some old battles at least in part - fighting with strawmen. There is not much detail in the article, but some things are mentioned and they are all old claims now disproved - that flamenco has primarily middle eastern/oriental or moorish or jewish heritage/origin, etc. - which he then apparently disproves with his american examples.
This video below seems like a good companion to the article: a 90+ minute video interview of him explaining about his book and findings, including with musical example using his voice or guitar. Because he seems to provide musical examples and others, perhaps Ricardo who has the depth and breadth of knowledge can examine the video and detailed claims presented there.
For more we have to get the book. I am interested, but also a bit skeptical given what I've heard and read so far - though it is possible the actual book does not make any sweeping claims despite how it is advertised and publicized, and/or is a lot better documented and more careful in its claims than what is presented in a more simplistic way for interview purposes.
To tell you the truth, I am disappointed by the constant implicit drive to deny gitanos their primary role in creating flamenco as an art form.
RE: Gitanos in XVI-XVIIIth centuries... (in reply to kitarist)
quote:
To tell you the truth, I am disappointed by the constant implicit drive to deny gitanos their primary role in creating flamenco as an art form.
Personally I love cante gitano and am friends with most of the gitano families in Cádiz. However, Faustino presents his book tonight and in media hora I shall be on my way to hear him.
The códigos QR are interesting: if you scan one you can see and hear it on your móvil.
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