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.
Right, good, and I know that you are familiar with and posted earlier about the Maximo Lopez fandango. I take issue only with this statement about the 'fandangos de salon' ("academic" fandangos):
<<the ritornellos are clearly Minor key, not Phrygian based>>
Problem is, if they oscillate between Dm and A, they invariably end on the A. (Forgive me if I posted about this earlier.). I wrote about this in an earlier article ("From Scarlatti to 'Guantanamera: Dual Tonicity in Spanish and Latin American musics", at https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/337/ ). I argued that the Scarlatti, Soler, Stgo de Murcia etc are not in minor, with some curious, inexplicable "ending on the dominant," but rather a pendular harmony consisting of oscillation between two chords of relatively equal stability. So it's not quite Phrygian either (as you note), though it's getting there. (The Mozart and Boccherini fandangos are in fact in minor, but they are more purely "European.") I posited a whole realm of music using this tonicity, which can be in quasi-major as well. E.g., "Guantanamera" -- C-F-G-C-F-G etc but properly (i.e., in Cuban style) ends on the G, not the C. Cf Cuban punto, same chords, and all internal and final cadences are on the G.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
So it's not quite Phrygian either (as you note), though it's getting there.
Ok, well, I take big issue with that stance personally, and it is not really my personal “feelings” about it either. Your statement there implies it (what they are doing I mean, see-sawing Dm and A major, and stop on A major eventually) is a stepping stone in some possible evolution between a Western common practice period concept that harmonic or melodic movements using these harmonies are pointing FROM “the key of D minor” tonality” towards a more proper, or accepted (by flamenco people at least) “phrygian” tonality. In other words, this music is moving away from a Dminor concept by the way it is approaching cadential function, toward what is later established by flamenco artist interpreters of the classical fandango, a replacement of the Dm with Bb major (and substitutes of the Bb major that carry stronger cadential “dominant” elements) in order to more firmly ground A Phrygian as tonic in the bigger picture. This stance is simply wrong the way I see it, and the reasons why it is wrong to see it this way is because two main things. 1. There would be no special reason to avoid Dm-A as a legitimate cadence for cantes (including fandango, but of course others) understood by Flamenco artists as “por medio” based songs. In other words, we should still see it being used in a similar manner, if one could legitimately argue that those classical fandangos are indeed in A major NOT in D minor after all, proven beyond just the fact that A is the last chord, but all along should be perceived as “ONE” (I). [incidentally, that concept you mention there that each harmony has equal strength, such as harmonic islands apart from each other, certainly works for jazz improvisation, which is a very modern concept relatively speaking. I am not aware that this concept going back into classic periods has any true basis…the chords derive from voicing concepts that absolutely must relate to each other]
This leads to the second reason the concept of an evolutionary stepping stone doesn’t work in this case….the simple concept of iv-I (Dm-A major) already exists as a legitimate cadence of its own called the “Plagal Cadence”. However, once you examine closely how this cadence manifests successfully you realize that this concept is NOT operating in these Fandangos thanks to the contextual information. Taken as isolated examples sure, one could argue those are Plagal cadences iv-I (Dm-A) designed to rest on the tonic having passed through the minor subdominant instead of the stronger V-I…but once you see how HALF CADENCES function in various contextual examples, you realize that it would be a big mistake to mislabel these things. This situation actually extends to your aside example Guantanamera or La Bamba or whatever simple music that pops up in analogies in hopes to confuse students that there would be tonal ambiguity in those cases. By that I mean, again in those cases, to argue that the final chord of rest is meant to be “tonic” implies, once again, the concept of a Plagal cadence situation. No two ways about, nor ambiguity there, this is an INCORRECT stance plain and simple. The half-cadence exists and is and was used, and as it implies, you are hanging on the DOMINANT chord of the tonic, whatever the tonic is supposed to be. (IV-V might also be a functioning half-cadence in context, V-vi, etc and these are often confused for MODAL tonic cadences, but again, with a bit more context this definition can change). There is a completely different expression and meaning behind the operation than the superficially equivalent looking Plagal cadence or modal vamp things (as described earlier such as Mixolydian or Dorian confused for IV-V, ii-V, or VII-i, etc.). Sometimes the contextual information needed that clears it all up is the MELODY ITSELF (especially with la bamba or Guantanamera this is the case for me). Sometimes it is rhythm or phrasing at least.
If you think maybe it is just ME and my personal “feelings” well, I would try to point to examples that have more contextual information to work with, for example an Algerias in E major can make use of several different cadences in context, without affecting the overall form in any damaging way, nor confusing the listener. For example phrygian half cadences to B (V) or G# (III) tend to remind the guitar player of related forms Granaina or Minera, however, without ever confusing the flamenco people involved that we are fully going THERE. Next the proper plagal cadence (A major or better A minor to tonic E), pops up often enough, without a danger of evoking the ridiculous idea that we are moving to the classical Fandango ritornellos! Of course we CAN take Alegria the direction of Fandangos, but it is the F chord that helps with that (or to lesser degree perhaps the Dm7, or better still the Aug6 chord over base F or D#)…and when that happens the entire Alegria takes on a new character very obviously. That simple exercise should start to pull the threads away from why those classic Fandango ritornellos are not really stepping stones between something, well “classical” that becomes more “flamenco” over time, rather, they must be fakemenco right out of the gate.
EDIT: I guess what I am saying with all that blabber above is that “flamenco” by its tradition and nature, is teaching us guitar players how to avoid this exact ambiguity for some reason, to distinguish A Phrygian from D minor concretely. To me it doesn’t make sense that this would evolve from Scarlatti “for no reason”. There is a strong reason for the structure hiding in the history.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
For one thing, in El Murciano’s 1840s “Rondeña,” the copla section is in clear fandango form (“Los ojos de mi morena”).
Sorry, I forgot to address this before (don’t mean to pick on you, I am glad you brought this up actually). I normally ignore the Murciano because from first glance it is no flamenco, it is fakemenco stuff. Perhaps the guy did play flamenco, but whatever that song is, it is not representative of THAT. Starting with the 7 string guitar. But I know flamencologists get all crazy like “its proto flamenco dude!! There was THIS stuff and then later it evolves”, but I simply don’t buy it. Especially after I saw the Ocón thing. But back to this piece…to be clear, Glinka didn’t transcribe it…Muriciano’s son did. What was his musical training and understanding of flamenco??? I didn’t really catch that in the Castro Buendia I read. Maybe I missed it, but starting with that arpeggio, it just reads as classical guitar fakemenco like Andres Segovia and Tarrega etc. If those guys are “proto flamenco” too then fine, but it doesn’t really make sense to me, at all. So what his son wrote down and Glinka later copied and published (there are two versions in Glinka history to compare and they are pretty close), they are just noodling things in E phrygian. Ritornellos if you want, but not even really. Nothing Fandango at all going on except 3/4… Glinka did say it was a “Fandango” verbally in his description, before putting his “Rondeña” heading or title to the thing. I am ok with that because even today, The Rondeña is the odd man out of the Verdiales family that actually does follow the Fandango structure. (If you don’t know what I mean, I don’t want to get into it now, but I mean the melody of the singing is more like Fandango than all the other cante Levante which is MORE like verdiales in structure). I am still going with the idea that song form titles were all over the place back then until some many many years into making vinyl jacket covers and even still, mistakes perpetuate confusions. I don’t care what label one uses as long as we are all talking about the same “thing” whatever it is, and accept that other people don’t use the same titles. That keeps it simple IMO.
So, THERE IS NO COPLA WHATSOVER. It was never in the original scores. The thing you name was part of a 1878 publication that INSERTED the copla and its accompaniment in a style the editors must THINK was similar to Muricano’s composing style, but I don’t see it myself. Next the OTHER collection that either copied this 1878 one or vice versa (Castro Buendia presents reasons it could go either way) literally STICKS the copla AT THE END after the song is over….and it has no lyrics or melody, it is just the bizarre classical guitarists type accompanist thing (different than the other) to what might be some singing (and it specifies the singer will come in whenever he darn well pleases ). For cryin out loud, I am sure some piano player did those editorial additions anyway. Why on earth would they do that? Because otherwise, the song title makes NO DARN SENSE!!!!
Anyway I appreciate CAstro Buendia took the time to go through that evidence to such detail (Solea bass runs and chromatics? LOL!), but for good sake it is not really helpful to keep pointing to examples that are fakemenco stuff. The Ocón was fabulous, and the Maximo lopez decent as well. Waiting for anything else along those lines, sorry if I sound narrow in my focus of what i need to see on paper, but going through so many scores takes time and energy and can be frustrating to say the least.
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
Hmm. Much material here. When I wrote that the dual tonicity of the salon fandangos was “getting” toward Phrygian, I meant it in a conceptual sense, rather than implying a historical stepping-stone, and you’re absutively right to note that. But I think this tonal ambiguity—with both Dm and A chords having relatively equal weight—is a distinctive entity. And of course it could be heard in different ways. Plopping the needle in the middle of the salon fandango record, Mozart will hear Dm as tonic, whereas a Baroque-era Spaniard will be quite happy with the ending on A—which doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s all in A Phrygian. Same with joropos, La Bamba, Cuban punto etc, it’s a whole tonal system with its own flavor. I don’t think the concept of “plagal cadence” works here, because that implies a iv-I tonicity, which is not exactly what’s going on. You correctly note how the melody can suggest a tonicity, and I would say, yes, but that tonicity can be ambiguous (and there is a charm and flavor in that ambiguity). E.g., in “Guantanamera,” and other typical punto melodies, note that the ambitus goes from G to g, and the final and internal cadences are on the low G note. (But then if you argue that G is the clear tonic, and C is just a plagal IV, then I would say it’s awfully strong and stable for a IV chord.) As we know, flamenco doesn’t use this sort of dual tonicity. It’s clearly Phrygian (aside from the major/minor ones). In my article I looked at some songs by Cuban sonero Arsenio Rodriguez, noting how he moved from an early “dual tonicity” period—where it’s as if he only knew two chords, C and G, but exploited that charming ambiguity—then he got more familiar with jazz-type harmonies and adjusted his tonal sensibilities accordingly. As for the Murciano, the notations with the copla were by his son, Malipieri, who marketed it as his father’s work. (The Glinka, as you note, didn’t contain the copla.) “Rondeña” and “malagueña” were used to some extent interchangeably back then. E.g., a newspaper had an ad for the notation of Murciano’s “malagueña”, meaning the “rondeña,” and much of his “rondeña” resembles what we hear as malagueña riffs. But now I am forgetting what my friend Maria Luisa Martinez and I wrote in our article. She was the one who unearthed another Malipieri notation in some dusty Madrid archive, and also Glinka’s entire notation, in the New York Public Library. In other words, I think it’s clear that the “textbook” fandango chord progression did exist from the early or-mid -1800’s if not earlier. I’m not crazy about calling Murciano etc “fakemenco,” which implies some fraudulence, fakery, although maybe that is not your implication. It’s pre-flamenco music of some sort, obviously related to what coalesced as “flamenco” in the next decades, and also revealing things about guitar playing in that period, when there was some interchange between “academic” guitar music and whatever we call Murciano (“urban folk”?).
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
Plopping the needle in the middle of the salon fandango record, Mozart will hear Dm as tonic, whereas a Baroque-era Spaniard will be quite happy with the ending on A—which doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s all in A Phrygian. Same with….
“Quite happy” implies that Mozart would NOT be happy with a half cadence. I am trying to say that being “happy” or not doesn’t change function. I realize we argued these points a couple years ago already…I guess it is good we both continue to stand on the same footing in order to discuss this subject? However, I recall you had a problem with V-I defining tonality, which gave me a big problem to making my point (whatever the heck it was, sorry, probably related still). Perhaps this video sheds some light, that I came across recently…it explains the history quite clearly how V-I evolves (and plagal cadences as well) via the voice leading rules. Also I agree that ambiguity can be in the ear of the beholder…but at the same time the concept you point to “Dual Tonicity” is not to imply the MUSIC inherently contains this, but, rather, you want to be accepted that two listeners are “allowed” to choose one tonicity over the other. I am trying to put forward that a deeper understand tends to push aside these “ambiguities” or options, simply as NEW labels are understood that properly describe what is happening and thus comes along a more clear way to “hear” as well, as an added benefit (rather than a shame that the once enjoyed ambiguity disappears).
quote:
then he got more familiar with jazz-type harmonies and adjusted his tonal sensibilities accordingly.
Why not that his newer approach has now informed YOUR EAR, about how he was ACTUALLY thinking all along? I mean, how can YOU be objective about the distinction?
quote:
As for the Murciano, the notations with the copla were by his son, Malipieri, who marketed it as his father’s work.
I see. Well, in that case I need to be pointed to evidence that this is specifically the case because I don’t see that at all in the Castro Buendia analysis. (Admittedly the only complete primary source presented is the 1878, others are fragmented or his own arrangement). The 1878 publication admits two things…1) his son was not always in the “mood” for this transcribing business of his dad. I found the footnote (6) and the brief description of his son that, indeed as I thought, he was a pianist and trained musician. This is a major “filter” that is, like Ocón, affecting MY interpretation of the score somehow. He is also a music teacher and singer AND guitar player. The acknowledgment to his son (by the publisher), along with the Glinka story also provided, reads to me that he is being “thanked” for providing the same transcription BASIS of his Dad who died soon after the score was made, as was the one provided to Glinka. We all admit the copla did not “fit” into what was given to Glinka, nor into the undated discovery version (it is conspicuously ADDED to the end). To interpret that as “today in 1878, his son has done up a new version for us!” is reading into it, more than what is written there. 2), the reason the piece was included was thanks to the PUSH by the editor JOSE CAMPO y CASTRO…who did all the changes. To me it is clear THIS GUY has added the copla, and as part of the rest of the edits, is also being thanked by the Publisher/Compiler of the collection.
So that, PLUS the simple fact the undated version has commonalities with the 1878 version yet COMPLETELY DEVIATES where the copla is concerned, tells me there is no way the son had anything to do with the copla. UNLESS there is missing info/admission in writing that you guys have that the son supplied ONE OF THESE TWO DIFFERENT COPLAS, I feel it is an editorial addition/adaptation.
EDIT: forgot about this:
quote:
I’m not crazy about calling Murciano etc “fakemenco,” which implies some fraudulence, fakery, although maybe that is not your implication.
Yes I apologize for the language, “fakemenco” has derogatory implications. However, what I mean is simply that Calderon describes pretty clearly guitar strumming and accompaniment that sounds not un similar to what we do now for cante. The singers that laud Murciano claim him to be great, or the “best” even, but what singers exactly?? His story certainly reads like Paco or Gerardo Nuñez–payos that drop out of school in order to become professional “gypsy” guitarists…so I want to believe he was great. Glinka does describe a girl singer and dancer involved in the jam sessions. But the score doesn’t show what kind of tocaor he really was. As if Paco de Lucia’s only legacy was that his conservatory-trained son transcribed Percussion Flamenca and some of his dads work with Santana and Alejandro Sanz…..get what I am saying? We are seeing glimpses of the guy through the son’s eyes, and it is maybe not quite exemplary. I appreciate all the research of course, but I don’t see the piece as set to the side as “flamenco” the way for example Ocón organized his book, clearly separating Polo from POLO. Again, Calderon makes it clear to me flamenco type stuff was “going on” so, saying Murciano is “pre-flamenco” doesn’t make much sense since he is existing right along side whatever that other stuff is. JUst like ARcas, Tarrega, Andres SEgovia, Jessie cook (oops! )
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
Ah yes, we belabored some of this a few years ago. No need to repeat. But regarding the origin of the “textbook” fandango copla form, you’ve read the sources carefully, and critically, including Castro, who points out its presence in various sources, e.g., the 1860 guitar manual of Jorge Rubio. But certainly many things remain enigmatic and undocumented. E.g., no documentation of fandangos de Huelva until recordings from the 1920s, and even then it’s not clear (at least to me), for example, if the syncopated cross-rhythm of the ritornello strum is traditional or was invented (exaggerated?) by Niño Ricardo.
Regarding Arsenio Rodríguez, there would be a contrast between some of his early or mid-career songs, like “Dáme un cachito”—G-D-C-D ostinato, but ends on D (“the dominant”, sic)—vs his later songs, as on the Ansonia LPs, where you don’t hear that sort of thing any more, there are more jazz-type ii-V-I progressions.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
Ah yes, we belabored some of this a few years ago. No need to repeat. But regarding the origin of the “textbook” fandango copla form, you’ve read the sources carefully, and critically, including Castro, who points out its presence in various sources, e.g., the 1860 guitar manual of Jorge Rubio. But certainly many things remain enigmatic and undocumented. E.g., no documentation of fandangos de Huelva until recordings from the 1920s, and even then it’s not clear (at least to me), for example, if the syncopated cross-rhythm of the ritornello strum is traditional or was invented (exaggerated?) by Niño Ricardo.
Regarding Arsenio Rodríguez, there would be a contrast between some of his early or mid-career songs, like “Dáme un cachito”—G-D-C-D ostinato, but ends on D (“the dominant”, sic)—vs his later songs, as on the Ansonia LPs, where you don’t hear that sort of thing any more, there are more jazz-type ii-V-I progressions.
Yes, no argument about Fandango structure existing, again, the oldest in existence would be Maximo Lopez, with the partial score you mentioned taking over from there if ever 2nd page is found to contextualize it (rendering Lopez as obsolete as earliest evidence). I would like to know if you did or did not have a concrete source that claims the copla was added by Muricano’s son, as it is not clearly stated as such in the Castro Buendia article.
About Fandango de Huelva and compas of Niño Ricardo…well I think it should be clear the relationship between what the guitar expresses then and now with the Sevillanas as we know it. If that is NOT clear we can perhaps discuss that connection in detail, but I assume most readers will get that. So, next we have this to look at:
This was the exact sevillanas I first learned as a kid in college, transcribed it and performed with my classical guitar teacher. Having believed I “learned” sevillanas properly from that example, I discovered quite surprisingly in my first flamenco dance class that the above piece didn’t work….starting with the fact there is an extra paseo between tercios, coupled with the fact my concept of “downbeat” and feel was all crossed. What a bizarre feeling when I axed the extra paseos, so the math worked out, and then the dancers just jumped on what I was playing with a clearly “crossed” rhythm. So my concept of how to notate this music (if I re-wrote the piece honestly on paper) had to adjust, and so began my journey into this flamenco universe.
So what is my point with this above? Well, to my great surprise and delight I saw just months ago, Eduardo Ocón had collected and noted the above piece with “wrong” compas, exactly as I had done (including the extra Paseos Paco and Modrego play). His ear, like mine, was not the issue, he just followed what he understood as a trained musician, and put this stuff on paper. He collected this circa 1860!!! So how to interpret this thing? As you see the phrases of singing go over the bar line and conclude on beat 2. Well, we can see that beat 2 in this transcription is actually BEAT ONE!! So, when you realize this concept (or if you think of 6/4 instead, the dancers begin on count 4 as that melody concludes there, and count 1 is the G7 chord), you can clearly see he as captured what you call “synchopated cross rhythm” where the dominant chord moves to tonic G7-G7-C…was perfectly well understood and in existence back then…as a special SEvillian expression of the SEGUIDILLAS! That is clearly where the modern fandango concept of compas derives from directly. (E7-E7-Am/(Am) Am! (Am)/ which on repeat is sevillanas, and fandango concludes G-F-E/ (E) E! (E), and the copla expresses this phrase as well.
Again, for ME, Ocón is a beautiful snap shot of evidence that shows this music did not evolve other than in song titles (we no longer call that “seguidillas”, it is simply Sevillanas), not to mention Garcia Lorca wrongly gets composer credit for the above piece not unlike cantaores are probably attributed to melodies they interpreted rather than created. So all this really means is we can push the bar line of history well back to before the first wax cylinders of this stuff, but again, I have not really seen with my own eyes stuff as clear cut as the Ocón….yet. My mind remains open.
Also thanks for the Arsenio Rodriguez…I would argue this music is not “dual tonic optional hearing” but a perfect modal vamp (mixolydian) in contrast to your Guantanamera and La bamba, but I will stop there.
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
Well that sevillanas is a bitch, I wouldn't know how to notate it. One thing, of course, is ppl hearing something, e.g., bulerías, the same way, but disagreeing as to what is the best way to notate it (and I think there is no single perfect way for that). Another thing is when ppl really hear different downbeats, and sometimes the music is structured with a lot of syncopation that can provide "interest" and also confusion--and maybe ways of hearing that really are incorrect. I see a lot of disagreement even about sevillanas. Internet gurus saying things like, "It is all two, there are no threes at all, even if everyone counts it in three." I'm not following your line about fandango de Huelva. In the early pre-Ricardo recordings we don't seem to hear the ritornello syncopation that seems to have become standard in his wake, though I think it was probably latent.
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
My compañera María Luisa Martínez (with some input from me) did about as good a job as I think can be done in ascertaining what can be known about the Murciano/Glinka/Malipieri scores, though some ambiguities certainly remain. I'm uploading the English version of our article to my site, which will take a few days, but the Spanish version is here: http://www.centrodedocumentacionmusicaldeandalucia.es/ojs/index.php/mos/article/view/200
"El Murciano's 'Rondeña' and Early Flamenco Guitar Music: New Findings and Perspectives." Música Oral del Sur 12, 2015: 249-70 (Peter Manuel and María Luisa Martínez), and in "The global reach of the fandango in music, song, and dance: Spaniards, Indians, Africans and Gypsies," edited by K. Meira Goldberg and Antoni Pizá (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016: 153-81.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
Well that sevillanas is a bitch, I wouldn't know how to notate it. One thing, of course, is ppl hearing something, e.g., bulerías, the same way, but disagreeing as to what is the best way to notate it (and I think there is no single perfect way for that). Another thing is when ppl really hear different downbeats, and sometimes the music is structured with a lot of syncopation that can provide "interest" and also confusion--and maybe ways of hearing that really are incorrect. I see a lot of disagreement even about sevillanas. Internet gurus saying things like, "It is all two, there are no threes at all, even if everyone counts it in three." I'm not following your line about fandango de Huelva. In the early pre-Ricardo recordings we don't seem to hear the ritornello syncopation that seems to have become standard in his wake, though I think it was probably latent.
Thanks for the article on Murciano, I will check it out tomorrow when I have time. About sevillanas…well, I Understand for some people, and maybe yourself as you admit, it is hard to properly notate this stuff. However, as you also admit, “maybe ways of hearing that really are INCORRECT”…yes, a huge understatement there. If I was going to have a deeper discussion I would need to know what is the level of experience accompanying dancers and singer a person had before making my case to any one individual about how the notation options that are MORE CORRECT should look. But when you casually state N. Ricardo is the firs to record Fandango compas proper, I don’t get that at all. I mean you can point to whatever recording someone is claiming is first appearance, but then I could show you THIS:
Now, I am at this point fully aware that certain things are open to interpretation such as the above. It is low fidelity, a good excuse, very old “fashioned”, a good excuse, and finally the label on the song is “malagueña” which is thought to be “related but DIFFERENT” than fandango. I get all that, but for cryin out loud if you know how to actually play this stuff at accompaniment level, the phrasing of fandango is clearly visible in here. He is singing malaguena but the tempo on intro and outra is Fandango tempo. And his phrasing, if you look at it mathematically, is not any different than what we do now. Maybe it is a little “different”, but if you apply a basic concept about phrasing to it, it is clearly present in the above example. Assuming that yourself and others reading can’t hear it at all, I offer two of my own videos explaining fandango in general, the first is basic strumming in 3, and if you watch the whole thing I point out the importance of emphasizing “ONE” despite other things that might happen, harmonically especially. Also the first half I admit is identical to sevillanas (tying us into Ocón evidence and what I showed earlier). The second video is a note for note Paco tutorial, however the fundamental concept there is where you will (if you learn what i am teaching) understand the count thing I use, a math matrix, that helps identify the phrasing you find in fandango whether Huelva or “libre” as they say. It is not a “loose” concept, there is basic structure. And you can hear the phrase 5,6,7,8,9, in Chacon where Juan Ganulla resolves phrases, then the accent on 11 in response to that. Also I show the phrases that might start on 11 or 5 (symmetrical phrases or half compases), or 10, and accent 12…yet the structure of phrasing holds even if it tricks your ear. Sorry they are long videos, but whoever is claiming n. Ricardo invented it and somehow these older players (Montoya and Gandulla) are learning it from him…(despite Ocon showing it existed basically as sevillanas long before already) might change their opinions if they learn what I am showing there.
A last clue for the ear to latch on to…the below example at :50 he plays the basic compas resolution that sounds similar to the Solea 1,2,3 arpeggio (A-B-D, G, F synchopated, then E), however as fandango using my count method the ABD melody is starts as the end of the descending arpeggio, so the A lands on 3, so 3,4,5, the G lands on 6 instead of 7, then the F is between 7 and 8, the E on 9. As funky as that sound, that is almost exactly what Gandulla is playing for Chacon in his intro (:16, :22) ….perhaps if that one phrase gets into the ear then one can hear how it all lines up like pretty normal fandango.
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
In the Chacon, I'm not hearing the now-standard fandango de H syncopation, which you so nicely lay out in your vid (i.e., chord changes on the weak beat 3 (E7 E7 Am - - - /G F E7 - - - ...). Granted that it's low fidelity, but it just sounds like abandolao to me. Same as some other old pre-Ricardo fndgos de H recordings. Wish I had your vid back in 1985 when I was hearing fndango completely wrong, had to ask Basilio, "You mean that A minor isn't the downbeat?!" "No, it's beat 3." "Well then I am really f--ked up." Had to retrain the ear, then it all made much more sense.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
In the Chacon, I'm not hearing the now-standard fandango de H syncopation, which you so nicely lay out in your vid (i.e., chord changes on the weak beat 3 (E7 E7 Am - - - /G F E7 - - - ...). Granted that it's low fidelity, but it just sounds like abandolao to me. Same as some other old pre-Ricardo fndgos de H recordings. Wish I had your vid back in 1985 when I was hearing fndango completely wrong, had to ask Basilio, "You mean that A minor isn't the downbeat?!" "No, it's beat 3." "Well then I am really f--ked up." Had to retrain the ear, then it all made much more sense.
Well silly me, I have been looking at the Ocón score for a while now, and managed to not notice he shows the "Fandango (Rasgueado)", new style on Page 80 with a detail description of how to do rasgueados (exactly like my videos except with pinky down first instead of index up, however points out index up only catches trebles on the "&" beat, or the second chord as he calls it). He describes it and notates the strokes with drum roll markings rather than show that the finger rolls lead into the beat (it is possible that he noticed the lone up strokes but missed the pattern I show that retains the same treble sound?).
So, unlike sevillanas, he has the beat phrases pretty much correct (although I suspect there are some late chord moves here or there). But in order to interpret the score, as my Paco Tutorial demonstrates, you should apply the counting so that his score starts on 9, which is a wrap around chord to connect the form. Truly it is the first beat of the second bar that the phrasing starts, the 10& is accented, and if you followed my video you can clearly see the 4& getting the same treatment as the phrasing is symmetrical. (he mayb.e didn't notice glopes that precede the accents on the &s?) The drum rolls can be interpreted exactly as I show the 11-12-1-2-3, 4& and resolution 5,6,7,8,9. You can clearly see the standard phrase (he replaces Dm for a full F barre chord), but with C-Bb-A instead of what I show as A-Bb-A.
And on it goes where your Niño Ricardo syncopated chord changes on count 3 follow the Cante for every change through the copla. (do I remind everybody that transcription is circa 1860????)
Now here is the super interesting thing. The next chart, the Rondeña o malagueña (Rasgueada), is exactly what I show for the fandango por medio, except here it is por arriba. (he toggles between E and F, where the changes are again on 3 and 9, your N. Ricardo syncopated phrase). Perhaps the last chord of the first line is misheard as the resolve back to E as the rest of the score typically shows. Again the chart for the copla shows chords moving on count 3 (usually 9 in context), as standard FdH.
He points out this rasgueado is "new" and the punteada style accompaniment is "Antigua". As arpeggios we see something more like Abandolao where harmonies only change on count 1. Despite using the same tempo. Today, Abandolao would be a lot slower IMO, Jaleo tempo and feel is typical.
Last the Muricianas o Granadinas, same deal, it is a Fandango style intro (changing on count 3, choosing either Em or C closing on B7 (dominant7 voicing is even unusual vs tonic triad. I assume he just got lazy for the copla, make a "jazz" chord chart style thing.
I think it is interesting he didn't notice the connection to the Seguidilla Sevillana and this "new" rasgueado style for Fandangos. A glance over some other Seguidillas and stuff I feel the concept evolved from those rhythms. But I am still at a loss for how N. Ricardo is the first guy to change chords not on beat 1 (ie syncopated) with evidence like this staring us in the face.
Last thing is I read your paper about Glinka etc, and I was a little confused, as Castro Buendia claimed to have received evidence from London?? It is hard to follow because none of you guys show all the original source evidences in full, only partial. I THINK what happened (help me out) is Glinka notebook is well known, but a single page of music was missing. Yet page 2 had some nominal percentage of the piece but what....nobody knew what that was?? So your friend found page one, and only shows that. And transcribes (copies?) the princess version which she also found....and Castro Buendia takes your friends page 1, gets page 2 from Essex, and transcribes (copies? LOL) the ENTIRE piece (again, only shows us the page 1 your friend found), and shows excerpts only from the Princess book and transcribes that on his own (even though your friend did that already)...Do I have that all correct?
At the end of the day, the only evidence I understood that claims Murciano's son transcribed the thing, was in the 1878 publication. It still looks to me that what was used by Glinka, ARcas, Jose Castro y Campos, and the princess, was all the same singular source...the ONE AND ONLY version his son did for Glinka. The other details, changes (and the coplas especially) are ADDED by editors long after the fact. I think if Muricano was a flamenco player (not a Proto flamenco guy) then his son just didn't notate the rasgueados and phrases like what Ocón did.
I do have a source, "The music of Spain" by Gilbert Chase, 1941, and he states on page 291 that Glinka "passed long hours listening to the FLAMENCO playing of an excellent popular guitarist named Francisco Rodriguez Murciano...".
What a thing to write with no reference or footnote...because I can't tell if the author is injecting the idea (he had no agenda, flamenco is a very small topic in this book), or if the word "flamenco" is actually coming from Glinka's mouth (this would predate the other hot evidence and clear up other questions). Also Glinka was in Sevilla, nobody talks about what he learned there.
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
Looking at the Ocon, yes, that is indeed interesting and significant. So the chord change on 3 certainly far predates Niño R, tho he may have stylized it in his ritornello pattern (can't remember who asserted that).
When I see Maria Luisa in a few weeks I can try to ask her about the points you raise. I'm sure no one has read this as closely as you have!
Gilbert Chase, oh well, scholarship has come a long way since then.
Last thing is I read your paper about Glinka etc, and I was a little confused, as Castro Buendia claimed to have received evidence from London?? It is hard to follow because none of you guys show all the original source evidences in full, only partial. I THINK what happened (help me out) is Glinka notebook is well known, but a single page of music was missing. Yet page 2 had some nominal percentage of the piece but what....nobody knew what that was?? So your friend found page one, and only shows that.
I was confused by this as well, but I think I figured it out and also found high resolution colour images of BOTH pages, resulting in the complete piece.
First of all, this was a single sheet (two sides!) torn by Glinka out of his Spain notebook and given to his young composer friend Balakirev for the purpose of studying it and eventually composing an original based on ideas from this rondena.
This happened sometime between Dec 1855 and Jan 1856 (in Feb 1856 Balakirev produces his piece (see paragraph below), and in April Glinka leaves for Berlin).
Balakirev did compose a piece, in Feb 1856, but Glinka did not like it so it was put away. It still exists, called by Balakirev "Fondango Etude sur une theme donné par M. Glinka" (sic).
Anyway, Balakirev did get the whole Murciano piece and this is what Castro Buendias seems to have received in 2015 from the Russians (I think; not from London), which he then re-transcribes in his 2015 paper "La Rondeña de Granada del célebre guitarrista Francisco Rodríguez Murciano". Because what he prints in the paper is (I think, from glancing at it but no detailed note-by-note study) identical to what I've found, I am fairly certain that is exactly what he was sent.
Except, he remarks of the bad quality of the reproduction (and clearly studies from that, including with a magnifying glass as he says, so whatever he received must have been the same poor quality). The first page was reproduced in the paper from the same year by Steelhead and Luisa Martinez, but that still had fairly bad quality.
Where I lose the plot is why just the first page, since it is the same sheet of paper - the other side has the second and final page. Or is the suspicion that the other side is the end of some OTHER piece? However, why would Glinka do that, and also Castro Buendia seems happy to think that it is the second half of the Murciano rondena. The only thing that seem slightly strange to me is that the more prominent tear (but it has tears on both sides) on the sheet seems to be on the wrong side.
I guess a source of potential confusion is also that this sheet is formally part of the Balakirev manuscript collection, not Glinka's, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, here are the facsimile originals of both pages in colour (right-click and download or show on a separate page to embiggen). This I found on a webpage part of a virtual exhibition of the Russian national library on Balakirev and Glinka, and they just happened to upload that exact sheet of paper, but both sides. Yay for us!
At the end of the day, the only evidence I understood that claims Murciano's son transcribed the thing, was in the 1878 publication.
No, that is traced to Glinka's own "Travel Notes" ("Записки"), it is Glinka himself who says that. Also FYI Castro Buendia keeps making the same mistake dating the Inzenga publication to 1878 - the correct publication year is 1882.
Glinka's travel notes, original in Russian, contain these descriptions of whom he met and of various dances he encountered - for example, he mentions "Olé" and "Jaleo de Xeres", danced by "Gui-Stefani".
Also in Sevilla in the winter of 1846 he hung out often with El Planeta (Antonio Monge Rivero) and his nephew Lazaro, he says - almost every night.
"Lazaro" must be Lázaro Quintana Monge, son of El Planeta’s sister, Dolores; born in 1802.
Glinka also remarks that it seemed, as he was listening to singing and dancing accompanied by guitar, that he was hearing "three different rhythms - the singing was going on by itself, separately the guitar, and the dancer moving her feet and striking her shoes seemingly separately from the music".
No, that is traced to Glinka's own "Travel Notes" ("Записки"), it is Glinka himself who says that. Also FYI Castro Buendia keeps making the same mistake dating the Inzenga publication to 1878 - the correct publication year is 1882.
yes, I meant transcribed the "thing" as in the later versions that are different that have coplas, supposedly given to the publishers 35 years or more after that beautiful picture you posted above, sorry I wasn't clear.
And about your last two posts....THANK YOU! I realize now I have been waiting 7 years or something for that basic info you provided. However last night I did read that passage in some other non flamenco paper about Glinka saying in Sevilla he observed "3 separate rhythms"!!!! . Seemingly separate from the music? Sounds like a recent dance class I had to play for!!!
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
Castro Buendía notices a fandango in a 1754 dance manual of Minguet y Yrol with the copla moving from the Dm-A ritornello to the standard F-Bb-F-C—at which point the next page is lost, but one strongly suspects that the ”textbook” F-Bb-A is following.
I was able to track this book down. The spot is the last phrase in the Bandurria section on page 47 here. https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/30907437 Yes it appears to be doing 2/3 of the harmonic structure...however if you look at the rest of the book (context) you realize when vocal stuff is implied he notes that and shows the lyrics as the example (see the guitar examples earlier in the book like p. 26). Since the book is focusing on instrumental playing techniques, and the title of the "fandango" section is "su Subida", which I take to mean the "Fandango...and now it's speed up section or finale". So It is clearly a picking sequence with rhythmic answers, and if it is speeding up it makes sense as an exercise that you loop back from C to F. (Castro Buendia misinterprets the "r" to mean "rasgueado" but the book describes the "redobles" like little grace note gallops, ie tremolo picking). Although he doesn't put a repeat bar, the truth is there is no "missing page", as the layout is the same style for every section in the book. Of course seeing 2/3 of the copla under a title "Fandango" means this is no coincidence, however, I also don't feel it is anywhere as close to solid evidence as the Maximo Lopez passage. Overall very interesting book...recalling the temperament arguments we have had, the clavichord section is great, where he suggests bending notes to intonate during certain cadences due to voicing issue....almost exactly like my "playing in tune" video shows LOL. I just didn't realize that Clavichord (unlike piano or harpsichord) had that very guitarist option (actually Richard Brune dropped me a message about it recently).
RE: Cultural appropriation (in reply to Steelhead)
If ppl are interested, my colleague Maria Luisa Martinez produced a nice CD,"Rondeña del siglo XIX," with the different Murciano versions (including sung coplas) played by one Juanfra Padilla on a 19th-c. guitar from some museum, and related pieces (Mochuelo, Arcas, Damas, Barrios etc.), with extensive liner notes. (I can't seem to load a photo of it onto this post.) I have several, if someone wants a copy, they can contact me. petermanuel440@gmail.com. (Peter Manuel is my nickname; my real name is Steelhead.)
The relevant part of Glinka's travel notes re: Spain are in volume 2 of the inaugural year (1870) of a historical monthly called "Русская старина"- something like "Russian historical documents" - loosely translated based on its contents.
The part of the notes regarding Spain (Glinka's "Period XII") is on pdf-file pages 439-451 (magazine pages 425-437).
And here is one dissertation that may be of interest as it goes in part over some of the same ground: Aguilar Hernández, Cristina (2017) "Conceptos de lo español en la música rusa: de Glinka a Manuel de Falla". Accessible for free from https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/42481/
But the most astonishing material I found yesterday, other than the complete Murciano Rondena in hi-res colour, is a 2011 book-sized effort by Ukranian musicologist and culturologist Сергей Тышко and musicologist Галина Куколь, called "Странствия Глинки. Комментарий к «Запискам». Часть ІІІ. Путешествие на Пиренеи или испанские арабески".
(Translated title: "Glinka's Travels; commentary to his "Notes", part 3 - Journey to the Pyrenees, or Spanish arabesques")
It is a 542-page monograph containing Glinka's brief 12 pages of travel notes from Spain with line-by-line extensive cultural and other contextual commentary, including quotes by other travellers(!), biographical notes on any names mentioned, historical context for some claims, and also relevant quotes from Glinka's letters to his mom or friends.
(BTW, to me this is the best approach to examine (or even teach) history - history in its context - successive historical snapshots in time, each with its cultural, political, societal context, also known as "horizontal history". In culturology it seems what Tishko and Kukol did is called "the cultural commentary method" in studies - here's a 2019 paper about it: https://rsglobal.pl/index.php/ws/article/view/172 )
Thus Alexandre Dumas is quoted, as well as we learn of several other contemporaries of Glinka who were in the same areas at about the same time (that we/I have not encountered or examined before). For example, we learn that a Russian writer, Botkin, was there in May-Oct 1845 and wrote about it in his "Letters from Spain". Also Polish-born writer and journalist Bulgarin, who was there around 1811 or so and published his "Memories of Spain (Napoleonic Wars)" in 1823.
Luckily, the complete 2011 Tishko & Kukol monograph is available (in Russian), from here (click on Download, then say "No thanks I'll stay on the free tier" on the following page, then you get to the pdf file; oh, you might have to create a free account first):
(the link has Bulgarian/Cyrillic script characters in it which is why it looks weird; if you hover over it you will see it renders normal symbols)
For example, starting on page 324 is the commentary regarding Glinka's first mention of Murciano and his playing of "Fandango with variations" - the authors' excerpt number 42 from Glinka's notes at the top of page 324 followed by seven information-dense pages of historical context, including quoting contemporaries Botkin and Dumas on Fandango (pages 326-328), and so on.
I am yet to look at the monograph in more detail, but first impressions are that it is outstanding. There might be a few gold nuggets hiding in there.
I Have not yet checked out your line by line analysis version, but I did read the Glinka in Russian and Noticed two interesting things. First, before he goes to Sevilla he admits to trying to read Calderon, which I assume is our Baile in Triana, etc, published that same year he was there, And this probably inspired him to seek out Planeta….although he says it was hard for him to understand due to Calderon’s writing style. Something I felt as well at first translations. Also he says Planeta was outdated, I guess he means, past his prime or old? I did not think he was that “old” (only 56-7), however, Glinka Himself is very concerned with picking up young women etc. I like how he admits he settled for A widow from cordoba when he failed at picking up some young thing in Sevilla
Also he says Planeta was outdated, I guess he means, past his prime or old? I did not think he was that “old”
Yes, Glinka meant past his prime in a physical sense (not 'outdated' which is what google translate serves). El Planeta is 56 at that point (1846); dies 10 years later.
Here's something else - turns out Planeta is the maternal great-great-grandfather of Manolo Caracol!
And it is quite possible that Planeta's father was the "Tio Gregorio" featured in Jose Cadalso's "Cartas marruecas" (the first name, location and profession match).
Also, Luis Alonso (he of "La boda de Luis Alonso") was Planeta's older brother.
FYI I don't know if you've encountered this but Glinka, prior to going to Spain, studied Spanish for several years, so he was reasonably well-versed in Spanish.
I realize Glinka referring to “Calderon” probably refers to the playwrite (like lope de Vega etc) not Estebanez Calderon. Interesting to know how Caracol connects to Planeta (other cantaores, I assume?)
I realize Glinka referring to “Calderon” probably refers to the playwrite (like lope de Vega etc) not Estebanez Calderon.
Yes, he is referring to Calderon de la Barca (1600-1681).
First, because this is all in the context of Glinka trying to read up on Spain's great writers, as in Cervantes, Lope de Vega, and the aforementioned. Tishko and Kukol (2011) examine this reference to difficulties with reading 17th century Calderon and have ideas why Glinka might have had them - their pp. 393-395.
Second, because Glinka mentions reading Calderon while in Madrid after Granada, so this is Mar-Aug 1846, the year before “Escenas Andaluzas” by Estébanez Calderón (El Solitario) was published.
BTW, Tishko and Kukol have put together a very nice timeline of Glinka's itinerary based on his notes, for easy reference - it is on their pp. 49-52.
Interesting to know how Caracol connects to Planeta
This was researched by finding primary sources in municipal archives etc. by Manuel Bohórquez, first in 2012.
Norwegians have very cute words to succinctly denote which exact grandparent is being referenced. Because mother is "mor" and father is "far", then they stack these creating the grandparent words: "farfar" is the paternal grandfather (father of father), "farmor" is the maternal grandfather (father of mother), "mormor" is the maternal grandmother, and finally "morfar" the paternal grandmother. How cute is that!
Anyway, Norwegians possibly stop there but in principle this can be extended to show the precise lineage of great- and above generations. The first syllable always indicates if the referenced person is male or female, and the last syllable indicates which side of the family - maternal or paternal, relative to the person whose grandparents we are inquiring about.
A person has 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, and 16 great-great-grandparents. These divide at each level into half of them being male and half female, and half of each of these being on the maternal and half on the paternal side.
Therefore, Manolo Caracol in principle has 8 great-great-grandfathers, but only four of them are from his mother's side. As it turns out, El Planeta is one of these four maternal great-great-grandfathers; more specifically, he is a "farmorfarmor", i.e. he is the maternal grandfather of Gregorio Juárez Monge who in turn is the maternal grandfather of 20th century Manolo Caracol:
I see, that is pretty interesting. Although, from the gypsies I know the arranged marriage thing keeps Things really tight, as you can imagine. In the Leblond book (or the one by Jan Yoors I am also reading) about Gypsies there is some sweeping statement that this practice keeps the people in good “physical” condition, And that they would sometimes travel far away in order to mix it up a little (to avoid inbreeding issues). However, I have seen problems with genetic diseases in the community.
Anyway, it seems all good singers are named Fernandez Vargas Monje Soto Torres Montoya.
PS. If anyone has read the 1974 Jan Yoors book “The Gypsies of Spain”, who was the cantaor “El Maestro” he hears at the end of the book?
I never did yet. But since you are reading it, I feel the important insight this guy has Is that Sevilla really is strange with the behavior during the Semana Santa (normally I, as many foreigners that encounter this cultural thing, just kind of set it aside as part of The people there in general and not a flamenco specific thing, especially the white hoods etc,) And also, the gitanos that we know are the flamenco artists and carriers of the tradition, actually are NOT AT ALL the same people as the gitanos of España that roam around and are separate from Society and thusly marginalized. And it is these gitanos that the author actually communes with (And the photography illustrates), despite the fact he was still intrigued by the flamenco artists.
This is a fairly big distinction for me, and I feel the flamencologists that speak of gitano creator or Interpretor vs payo, and the history etc, they are not making this distinction carefully. Hence, the outside World gets a vision that all those other gitanos that wander around in a caravan etc, are carrying the flamenco Tradition, or creating the music, which is hugely misleading. Even Leblon who points out surname and Geografic distinctions very clearly (even a bit surprising to me as I never really stepped out to notice How concentrated the flamenco story really is), is guilty of letting those other type of people get lumped in As the oppressed group, leaving a false idea that this oppression relates to the music.
I never did yet. But since you are reading it, I feel the important insight this guy has Is that Sevilla really is strange with the behavior during the Semana Santa
Oh, so you've read it? Yoors never really says who 'El Maestro' is; I think this encounter is in Sevilla, in the mid to late 1960s, El Maestro saying he is too old to sing probably means he is in his 60s+ or so, so born around 1900 or even before? The names of others that are mentioned - El Gato, Tripas (as cantaor), El Churi - do these mean anything to anyone in terms of clues?
quote:
And also, the gitanos that we know are the flamenco artists and carriers of the tradition, actually are NOT AT ALL the same people as the gitanos of España that roam around and are separate from Society and thusly arginalized.
Yes, I had the same realization as I was reading various sources and analyses.
I did not recognize those names. In the back of my mind I am imagining one of these guys, based on the big deal that was made about “El Maestro”. I am sure that someone knows the geography better than I, could decipher who that singer was.
Couple of clues: Talega (1891) was in Dos Hermanas, So pretty close to the area it seems they travel to? Not featured here was Joaquin’s son from Alcala, sang His dad’s stuff, but not a pro maestro by own admission. He would hang with Platero and considered him a Maestro I am sure.
Piñana, hardly viejo by comparison (1913), actually Had the nickname “Maestro”, but way over in Murcia. Agujeta (1908) was in Rota. Onofre (1893) in Cordoba.
Printable Version
). For cryin out loud, I am sure some piano player did those editorial additions anyway. Why on earth would they do that? Because otherwise, the song title makes NO DARN SENSE!!!! 
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