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.
Most likely the issue comes down to “reintroduced” Montoya to Spain as a statement. Obviously, many pro players were well versed in Montoya’s material and utilized it as accompanists. I suspect that the concept of note-for-note renditions of the solos pieces, as his album demonstrated, might be what he is referring to, in a live performance setting. IE, he was not playing only for singers and dancers, and he was playing montoya in a classical way, like say a classical guitarist can do an “all Bach” program or something. And we know people like Mario Escudero were in USA recording Montoya material (I have his record from the 50s where he plays the Rondeña for example).
So perhaps, knowing the Foreignor’s interest in the material of Montoya as a solo guitarist, and his popularity therefore outside of Spain, he could have been making this point about solo guitar playing not being a big “thing” in Spain, and that he had to inform his own territory of something that the rest of the world was quite familiar with. So his point might have been not about Flamenoc guitar players like Paco AT ALL…of course the flamenco community knew this stuff, but it has been an issue in Spain that flamenco guitar is for banging chords in a bar by low class peasants, straight through the 1980s. PDL cancelled a concert because the media printed his name smaller than Julio Iglesias and Placido. He felt this thing never happened outside of Spain…it was a situation where solo guitar was never really respected there, unless you played classical like Segovia.
Your observation (years ago) about the famous Levantica falseta of this Montoya creation, was very profound, as it is not obvious at first. For example, when I learned to accompany that in Taranta key, I was taught by other guitarists to play Bm under that cante…Bm moves to D7 in other words. Montoya just hits D bass (G major equivalent in Taranta key). He never uses G natural (A7 is D7 equivalent in Taranta). So in this topic here, my microscopic comparison of details in young Paco’s version (to see who he might have been copying), I realized Paco does not complete the letra in that falseta. The main high pitch theme is following the formal Fandango structure via lines of verse 1,3,5. Paco only does lines 1,3, then quits, or concludes on line 4. So he never realized the full copla in his head, and therefore probably did not recognize that it WAS based on the copla. This is confirmed by a later versions where he plays this same falseta. Montoya and others do it 3 times, making the 6 delivered lines of a copla (if you count the first malagueña-ish resolve to A major, which is NOT how Levantica goes, but mathematically replaces the normal first sung line). Shame on Paco!
I remember you disagreed at the time, so thank you for saying that.
quote:
Here at 54:30…he still never got the full copla
No harmonics, either.
If I may digress, although it’s been said that Montoya was the first flamenco guitarist to perform solo, I read a long time ago about a guitarist named Antonio Sol who was born 12 years before Montoya and was performing solo in the 19th century. Miguel Borrull padre and Javier Molina were two others who were older than Montoya and probably performed solo (and classical).
Which brings me to the acrid point I’m here to make. It’s well known that Segovia had nothing but bad things to say about flamenco guitarists, aside from his weak acknowledgement of a few who’d been dead for decades and Manolo de Huelva, who didn’t die until 1976 (so, probably still alive when Segovia badmouthed the rest). Here’s the thing: Segovia was born four years before Montoya and died 38 years after him. How on earth could he have failed to recognize Montoya’s genius?
That said, I’ve only read a couple of Segovia’s interviews, so I don’t have all the facts at my disposal. It’d be interesting (for someone else) to do a deep dive to see if he ever mentioned or was asked about Montoya. Snubbed him real bad, if you ask me.
Which brings me to the acrid point I’m here to make. It’s well known that Segovia had nothing but bad things to say about flamenco guitarists, aside from his weak acknowledgement of a few who’d been dead for decades and Manolo de Huelva, who didn’t die until 1976 (so, probably still alive when Segovia badmouthed the rest). Here’s the thing: Segovia was born four years before Montoya and died 38 years after him. How on earth could he have failed to recognize Montoya’s genius?
was'nt there some odd rumour, segovia was the son of paco lucena at some point. That basically he was born outside of wedlock, spent a few years in linares and then moved to jaen to live with his aunt and uncle???
story i heard is paco lucena died when segovia was around 5/6 and his mother was unable to look after him, the other story is the relationship soured so badly between segovia's mother and father, they both left to live in jaen.
The theory presented here is that Segovia’s “stepfather” was a guitarist known as “Paco de Lucena chico” (no family relation to Paco de Lucena), and the “chico” part of his name was eventually omitted as the story was retold over the years.
I didn’t make it to the end, but it looks like there’s plenty of interesting information there.
Montoya was born in 1879, Segovia in 1893. Montoya was 14 years older, and far more experienced as a live performer and recording artist. But Segovia went to France to kick start his career and records in 1927 the first records. Zayas pushed Montoya to follow (reluctantly) the youngster’s path, but that was already a decade later. So I am sure that having the older maestro hot on his heels was nerve racking for Segovia (especially if he had daddy issues). So in a way, it is understandable he needed to distance himself from the Spanish virtuosos (and Mangore in SA).
Didn’t check all the links yet (I will), but the info comes from (so I heard) the 1922 contest winner, Tenaza, supposedly knew Segovia’s family. He was drunk and “spilled the beans” so to speak in the after party. The Drunk part is corroborated as I have an article where Segovia said Tenaza sang very well but the family of Caracol tried to get Tenaza super drunk so the 12 year old could win, as evidenced by Tenaza singing the same letra over and over. He also said Tenaza was not very powerful voiced anymore due to having been stabbed in the chest which collapsed one lung! I don’t know if we will ever know without a DNA test, but I think Segovia’s left hand looks like the typical Gitano type chord and scale grip, of which it is rare to visually see in other players hands. It is such a funny intuitive vs learned/studied thing, it has me believing the story in the end.
And based on Tenaza singing Paquirri 4, he had a vocal technique that few develop in any singing genre. One lung???
And based on Tenaza singing Paquirri 4, he had a vocal technique that few develop in any singing genre. One lung???
Yeah, strong singer. Weird unpleasant eco, though, like the smell of air released from a bicycle tire. Okay, that’s an even weirder metaphor.
quote:
But Segovia went to France to kick start his career and records in 1927 the first records.
Segovia's first recordings or the first solo recordings ever? The definitive double CD of Montoya’s solo recordings has some that were made before 1927, I think, but it doesn’t indicate recording dates for any of the tracks. Huge oversight. I found a catalogue list of his solo recordings with dates (or maybe just years) and tried to match the entries to the tracks on that double CD. As I recall, I found most of them, but there were some left over on the list, so I think some early recordings are missing from that double CD.
I’ll see if I can track down that list and post again later today or tomorrow.
Segovia said that he rescued the spanish guitar two times , the first time from the noisy flamenco players that maintain the spanish guitar hostage from the flamenco cantes etc , and the second time when he introduced the classical pieces adaptations and "originals" to give the guitar another dimension He recognized the talent of the tradicional (whatever that means...) flamenco players (the olders i guess) but not the noisy ones.. (70´s era maybe late 60´s), this is highly contraditory ..
the guy was a genius , like many of them very self center.... and protetive of his work and guitar way... and a huge snob.. Was also simpatetic and "friend" of the fascist Franco.... (no surprise..) Dont forget that Franco used and kept Flamenco "hostage" to give national identity and build social projects for gipsies like guetos , forced gipsies to move to those guettos outside town
The definitive double CD of Montoya’s solo recordings has some that were made before 1927, I think, but it doesn’t indicate recording dates for any of the tracks. Huge oversight.
The liner notes talk about 1927-28 as the time period he started introducing solos into the theatre shows, but I think this gives a false impression that he recorded them on wax or vinyl. They make it clear it is only in 1936 that he is establishing the solos definitively, which implies the other solo tracks come after that time.
Based on the fidelity of the alternate tracks (CD1), I would say they were recorded late in the game, maybe 1940s. One way to check is the ambiance and any cante where his guitar is tuned down, I think a half step or so….there are voices on the tracks and of course the guitar duets (Amalio Cuenca? Should be a clue), etc. All that should point to some sources for the dates. In general the “definitive” CD was not done with care. Needle skips on easy to acquire vinyl BAM tracks are not acceptable to me. The “technology” which is little more than noise reduction and compression, ruined the tone of the guitar compared to the vinyl I have by comparison. And of course no dates is ridiculous on such an historical document, not to mention the vague program order of it all.
Here’s the list of his solo recordings. It appears to be just a compilation of catalogue numbers and titles, rather than a study of the actual recordings, and I think it was put together by Eusebio Rioja. I’m not entirely sure because I’ve been more focused on playing than research for the last 10 years or so. The numbers to the left of the track titles are the catalogue references, which often changed with reissues, so matrix numbers are what sound research is based on.
Montoya’s solo recordings are on several labels: His Pathé recordings are the earliest, made in 1922 and 1923. I think these are the crappy-sounding recordings on that double CD because nearly all the old Pathé recordings sound like that. Gramófono is another label, not to be confused with Gramophone. The BAM recordings are the easiest to identify, as I recall, because they sound the best and feature someone’s non-stop commentary in the background. I don’t know who it is, but Amalio Cuenca is the other guitarist in Montoya’s last two recordings, which were made after the BAM recordings.
I agree entirely about using ambience and other clues to try to establish recording years.
Like I said, this is as far as I got about 10 years ago, and I imagine someone’s done pertinent research since then. For example, Agustín Carbonell “el Bola” published an interesting book on Montoya which may have definitive information on all of this.
12 tracks on Pathé label recorded before the Gramófono recordings. Pathé released disks in 1915-17 and 1922-26, Montoya recorded for Pathé in 1922 and 1923. 1654 Tango 1654 bulería 1655 Guajira 1655 Seguidillas gitanas 1 1656 Malagueña 1 1656 Granadinas 1 1657 Murcianas 1 1657 Tarantas 1 1658 Soleares 1658 Alegrías 1660 Seguidillas gitanas 2 1660 Granadinas 2
12 tracks on Gramófono label released in 1927 and 1928 AE2153 La Caña AE2153 Soleares en mi AE2203 Granadinas AE2203 Malagueñas AE2228 Guajiras AE2228 La Rosa AE2269 Rondeña AE2269 Tarantas AE2310 Tango AE2310 Bulerías por soleares AE2311 Alborada AE2311 Farruca
14 tracks from the BAM album “Arte clásico flamenco” from 1936 101 Soleá 101 La Rosa (Alegría) 102 Taranta 102 Granadina 103 Siguiriya 103 Fandango 103 Bulería 104 Rondeña 104 Guajira 105 Tango 105 Malagueña 106 Minera 106 Farruca 106 Alegría
Two tracks recorded and released after BAM album soleá with guitarist Amalio Cuenca malagueña
Montoya’s solo recordings are on several labels: His Pathé recordings are the earliest, made in 1922 and 1923. I think these are the crappy-sounding recordings on that double CD because nearly all the old Pathé recordings sound like that. Gramófono is another label, not to be confused with Gramophone. The BAM recordings are the easiest to identify, as I recall, because they sound the best and feature someone’s non-stop commentary in the background. I don’t know who it is, but Amalio Cuenca is the other guitarist in Montoya’s last two recordings, which were made after the BAM recordings.
Wow, ok, well for me the Gramófono recordings are really great quality (the commentary is on those, not BAM, which are clean). He has the guitar tuned down, but I prefer the guitar tone (it is a better guitar IMO, if they are different) he gets on BAM, but the fidelity is impressive for the time with this Gramofono thing. So Montoya for sure has a couple albums worth of recordings of solo guitar before Segovia’s 1927 offering. To be fair, a lot of noodling going on with Ramon earlier, where as I sense more focus and musicianship on the BAM offering. Segovia was technically much more clean and focused, but we are comparing Heifetz to Paganini in this sense (interpreter vs composer). On the gramofono we see that Guajiras drop D which is very unique, but no Minera yet. Rondeña is the same but minus the Levantica. The best track on GRamofono is Bulerias por Solea, wish he had reworked that for BAM, because for me it is better than the Bulerias on there. That single track put up next to Segovia the same years, and it is clear why Segovia would be scared of him. Interesting that he combines Caña and Soleá on BAM as one solo, vs Gramofono where he is thinking of them as separate palos.
So the extra Minera (there are two of the same solo pretty much, and it reveals Montoya was trying to construct his solos here, not noodle and improvise as he used to) on the CD (and a couple other extras, Siguiriya, solea etc.) must have been BAM outtakes….I wonder if they were released as B sides or something on 78s? Since they did not use analogue tape I am curious where those came from.
To be fair, a lot of noodling going on with Ramon earlier, where as I sense more focus and musicianship on the BAM offering.
Oh, yeah. His playing improved drastically in the years leading up to 1929, the banner year of flamenco recordings (and the year of Chacón’s death and Morao’s birth). Really, it’s astounding when you compare his recordings (cante accompaniment) from the early to mid-1920’s to those made in 1928/9: Chacón, Chaconcito, Aurelio, Mojama, Niño de Cabra, Cepero, Marchena, Pastora, Vallejo and others. What really surprises me is that the improvement came as he was nearing 50 years of age (he turned 50 in 1929).
Of the recordings on that list, I haven’t found the one titled “murcianas.” Maybe it’s actually one of his mineras and someone called it murciana because it sounded new and different and they didn’t know what else to call it.
quote:
I wonder if they were released as B sides or something on 78s? Since they did not use analogue tape I am curious where those came from.
And notice that, among the BAM recordings, there are two cases of the same catalogue number being used for three recordings (two is normal, as the A and B sides of a disk).
Editing post because I forgot to mention something:
quote:
On the gramofono we see that Guajiras drop D which is very unique,...
As far as I know, all of Montoya’s and Sabicas’ guajiras are in drop-D tuning. I went looking for ideas and was surprised to find that. Pretty sure that includes their cante recordings.
As far as I know, all of Montoya’s and Sabicas’ guajiras are in drop-D tuning. I went looking for ideas and was surprised to find that.
Hmm, no actually the one on BAM is Normal A major, with bits and pieces even Paco and Sanlucar where still using. You might recall he oddly inserts modulation material from Am and Malagueña phrases in the middle of it. That really stood out to me anyway.
quote:
Of the recordings on that list, I haven’t found the one titled “murcianas.” Maybe it’s actually one of his mineras and someone called it murciana because it sounded new and different and they didn’t know what else to call it.
That is interesting that you didn’t locate it. However, not sure if you have ever looked at Eduardo Ocón, but this classical piano prodigy picked out by ear some hardcore flamenco (by my reading), going on as early as 1857, and he implies it is old material going back to “end of the last century or the start of this one”. What it revealed (shockingly) to me, is that the cante por fandango, Malagueña, Solea, Polo, Saeta (that relates to Martinete), was already established, as were toques por arriba, por medio (fandango at least), and Granaina. Here you see concretely, much as the Montoya/Chacon “Murciana” corroborates, the Granaina toque and the “Murciana” song title had been linked for over 80 years already!
Here is the rest as a chord chart, I highlight the copla chord changes for verse lines 2,3,4,5,6.
About age issue, yes late 40’s into 50’s is a trend it seems. Sabicas said everybody needs 20 years of cante and baile accompaniment under the belt before the solo playing becomes legit. People like Paco and Manolo offer us Sirocco/zyryab/Luzia and Tauromagia in this age range, Gerardo Andando del Tiempo, and now a days I feel it myself, only now realize he was not exaggerating.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Hmm, no actually the one on BAM is Normal A major,...
Ah, you’re right; I guess it’s just Sabicas, then. And, to be clear, what I studied were all his recordings in my collection. He recorded so many, I must be missing a few.
quote:
However, not sure if you have ever looked at Eduardo Ocón,...
Yes, I’ve had copies of the Ocón material for some time. For the cante minero book, I had hoped to find some early mention of toque de Levante (F sharp), but there’s nothing about it there. Glad you pointed out the murciana-granaína link because I’d forgotten about that.
quote:
...as were toques por arriba, por medio (fandango at least), and Granaina.
Yeah, it’s surprising how far back it all goes. And unsurprising at the same time, because there have always been higher and lower voices (men and women, for starters), and playing por arriba and por medio (and granaína for cantes levantinos) goes way back, too.
A real puzzler are two recordings of Niño de Cabra made seven years apart, with Enrique López in 1906 and Ramón Montoya in 1913. He sings cartagenera and they accompany him por medio. Weird, eh?
A real puzzler are two recordings of Niño de Cabra made seven years apart, with Enrique López in 1906 and Ramón Montoya in 1913. He sings cartagenera and they accompany him por medio. Weird, eh?
Right. Well, I went through your guy’s book (finally purchased on my last spain trip 2021), and my personal feeling was I noticed mixing with that Fandangos (or a couple) and some malagueñas on the same performance. By that I mean certain mixing of cantes mineros with both malagueñas and Fandangos. The one that stood out for me was a certain Fandango that the first and 3rd lines resolve to the 6th degree (A in the key of C major), very much like the Cartagenera los Picaros etc. (resolving to B in D major). Not sure if that specific case was going on, but it made sense to me that since they were not afraid to mix a Fandango with a cante minero (unlike today) that the guitarists would have to make that choice back then, before the start. The recordings are just snap shots in time of the general practices, so for me it makes total sense that accompanying cantes mineros in Fandangos keys was probably a “thing”, that simply has died out because it was not recorded often. Or the competitions like “cante de la Mina” that want to not have much mixing of styles forced a separation from related fandango structures (thou shalt no longer mix the Fandango de Trini with Tarantas, or whatever).
A big light bulb went off when I read in your book about the examples of the phrygian guitar cadence on the penultimate lines of verse, which produce a sort of double phrygian resolution (both the 5th and 6th lines go to F# rather than D then F#). Melchor used to do an early E chord at the start of the 6th line with basic fandangos often (like Caracol examples in Rito), and it hit me that it might have been the case that the use of 4 line vs 5 line verses might have offered the option to guitar players. By that I mean, long ago, a 4 line verse simply resolved to the Phrygian cadence on the 5th delivered line, where as 5 line verses would go back to major first (6 delivered lines). If a guitarist hit the major chord, then the singer would necessarily repeat the 4th poetic line for the resolve, creating the same structure for use with both 4 and 5 line verse (unlike Solea where you have different musical structure for 3 vs 4 line verse). Similarly the typical delivery of the first two lines of verse as BAB, or the half verse 1/2B-A-B, etc., could imply a structure that at one time went ABAB, meaning 7 delivered lines where one is missing (musically speaking, IV-I,IV-I rather than I-IV-I). Of course I know there are different delivery options, including (like solea) waiting on to the A line till the penultimate, etc.
I won’t vouch for anything there about cantes. My part was the guitar, I did all the work and he didn’t change anything I’d written, as far as I know, but he went kinda nuts with his part and I just stepped away. There’s a reason it’s not mentioned on my website. If anyone wants a PDF copy, just say so and I’ll gladly share.
quote:
...for me it makes total sense that accompanying cantes mineros in Fandangos keys was probably a “thing”, that simply has died out because it was not recorded often.
In the early recordings, cantes mineros were accompanied in E, F sharp and B, whatever fit the singer’s range or maybe for other reasons, but all three keys were used. Montoya, Sabicas and Luis Yance also accompanied in G sharp (minera) and, as you know, Montoya even accompanied with rondeña. It’s not until Niño Ricardo that we start to see a systematic approach of accompanying malagueñas in E (sometimes in F sharp), cantes mineros in F sharp and granaínas in B.
quote:
The recordings are just snap shots in time of the general practices,...
So true. The siguiriya of el Viejo de la Isla and its derivatives are a good example of that. As if they were fashions that came and went. I love (updated) old school singing and playing, but some aficionados might not care for it, just as they wouldn’t dress like their grandfather or drive an antique car.
quote:
Or the competitions like “cante de la Mina” that want to not have much mixing of styles forced a separation from related fandango structures...
Yeah, maybe. It’s my opinion that competitions didn’t have much bearing on the development of singing in general, but maybe they did influence cantes mineros. Those cantes weren’t well developed until the second half of the 20th century, and their champion Antonio Piñana wasn’t a strong enough artist (again, my opinion) to encode them in a way that would catch on and make a lasting impression. At the turn of the century, other styles from western Andalucía were going strong, but insofar as cantes mineros on pre-war recordings, it’s the same two cartageneras over and over, with a few rare appearances of the taranta de la Gabriela. It’s no wonder a puny-sounding singer like Manuel Escacena (specialist in cantes mineros) was held in high regard back then. What I’m trying to say is that external factors (e.g. competitions) might have helped to develop cantes mineros more than internal factors (i.e. communities with generations of professional and non-professional singers).
quote:
By that I mean certain mixing of cantes mineros with both malagueñas and Fandangos.
Malagueñas, yeah, and fandangos de Lucena. Malagueñas were a popular and well-developed style in the late 19th century, with maybe 20 cantes and as many talented specialists and an enthusiastic following. For sure, that momentum carried over into the development of cantes mineros, which might be described as malagueñas with the weird harmonies heard in cantes abandolaos (including fandangos de Lucena). There are specific details, too, like the fourth and fifth sung line in the cartagenera de Rojo el Alpargatero (“Los pícaros tartaneros”) being practically identical to the same parts of the malagueña del Mellizo.
quote:
...long ago, a 4 line verse simply resolved to the Phrygian cadence on the 5th delivered line, where as 5 line verses would go back to major first (6 delivered lines).
This part of your post is dense (or maybe I am this morning). If I’ve understood you correctly, I think something similar happens in the accompaniment of five-verse soleás. Not a fandango sung to soleá rhythm but a soleá sung with a fandango letra. Caracol started it and the Mijitas still do it; guitarists have to wait for another verse to resolve.
quote:
Melchor used to do an early E chord at the start of the 6th line with basic fandangos often (like Caracol examples in Rito),...
I think that move came directly from malagueñas. Not all guitarists do it and I think not all singers are expecting it or even want it. Sounds good when it happens and it works. Since you mention Caracol, I’ll add that he was criticized for just borrowing parts of the malagueña del Mellizo to create his personal fandango. Don’t know if that’s true, but I’ve noticed him steering that way in some recordings. Mairena seems to have been similary drawn to the cante of María Borrico and the toná-liviana when recreating siguiriyas.
Here is Worms speaking Spanish, or (as he gets a bit tired) espançais. He talks a bit about theory and history, mentions the Ocón stuff at about the hour mark.
I won’t vouch for anything there about cantes. My part was the guitar,
I went through the entire book with the CD. It is meticulous and accurate as far as I can tell. For example I will be hearing the cante ahead of reading, and thinking, “wait a darn minute that sounds like the Cartagenera from before”, and then sure enough Chaves states exactly that the sung line I heard was coming from the Cartageneras, and a big etc. Very well done IMO, and I learned tons from it. The only thing for me is the lengthy text (he is following the descriptive style of the Solers obviously) could be explained so much quicker with a score of the actual melody in standard notation. The Solers collaborated with some guy for the Malagueña book, and even though they still waste some space with text of “melodic arcs” and such, the scores are super clear and helpful. They are not perfect scores, but I can visualize the thing clearly (I pencilled in some errors here and there). But such is “flamencology” I guess. Anyway I prefer this classification stuff greatly over the other types of investigations….mainly because it is clear to me these guys actually have an ear for melody and structure.
About mixing of cantes I mentioned earlier, I did not mean the specific borrowing of melodic lines (as your Caracol example and others imply), I was saying that a fully realized “Fandango” might have been sung so a guitarist uses Por medio or por arriba, and then the singer would decided to sing a Cante Minero, take your pick (or if the Fandango was used second, it might still give the guitarist a desire to prepare for that tonality). So you end up with an isolated example of a cante minero sung to por medio or por arriba guitar. (The CD in your book has both isolated letras and the original full tracks where I observed the mixing going on). EDIT: I checked your book and indeed, in the case of the numerous por arriba uses, I count 10 out of 18 recorded tracks were in fact mixing cante mineros with either Fandango, Malagueña, or abandolao (Rondeña etc.). Only the one example of por medio is harder to explain but would make sense based on the por arriba situation.
But in regards to what you thought I was saying….whether the idea gets legs (is copied by other singers) or not, mixing the melodic lines up in new ways seems to be the exact method of “creation” of the cantes in general…all styles. And the fact that many cases show a clash between guitar and voice harmonically (for example that 6th degree in Picaros forced guitarists to change the fandango structure, Mellizo as well), implies a deliberate borrowing from some primary source, rather than an improvised creation.
About 5 line solea, yes exactly the thing I was considering as well. The text should IN THEORY, change the formal structure, but in the case of Fandangos, the structure is never more or less than 6 lines delivered musically. We never get that “zero verse” situation that the Solea family enjoys, for example. So, I was just saying that perhaps the double phrygian ending is suggesting a more flexible structure at some historical point for Fandango in general (long ago 4 line verse ended there with no repeat)? Just an idea, no need for deep ruminations.
Here is Worms speaking Spanish, or (as he gets a bit tired) espançais. He talks a bit about theory and history, mentions the Ocón stuff at about the hour mark.
Thanks. Glad to know someone else out there appreciates the Ocón for what it is. (Castro Buendia disappointed me a little with his interpretation, sort of saying it shows flamenco in a state of flux). But the thing about 5 string guitars….we recently discussed the old style guitars estebanana built, and he noted that Planeta used a 6 course guitar of Martinez from Malaga, and there is one from 1790’s to see, and he called it a “vihuela”, suggesting that to gitanos from that era, a 6 string is vihuela and the guitarra is 5 strings (just like in the Renaissance).
Next in the interview he discussed the Estebañez observations of Planeta and Fillo, where Planeta scolds Fillo that his raspy voice is not “puro”. And then Dolores who sings a new type of Malagueña…I found some researchers believe it was Mellizo’s aunt, and she could have been doing an early version of the famous cante he is known for. And soon after he discuses the tonos for the Mellizo cante and how they have changed. I made the same case a while back and zeroed in on Montoya, who accompanied the early Nino de la Isla with F instead of Am, but changed it to Am for Vallejo. This ties in to what I was just talking to Norman about above, how the “clash” between guitar and voice suggests a primary source from elsewhere rather than an improvisation. In the case of Mellizo there is anecdote that he changed the melody in his old age because he could not reach the macho notes….essentially he is singing a third below the original (again compare N. De la Isla high melody, to Vallejo that does the lower melody). So, concretely, CDEDC becomes ABCBA. The third harmony below does not match a C major chord. Sabicas and others often don’t play ANY chord on that version, just the bass note A.
It is an interesting observation anyway, thanks for sharing.
Printable Version
PDL cancelled a concert because the media printed his name smaller than Julio Iglesias and Placido. He felt this thing never happened outside of Spain…it was a situation where solo guitar was never really respected there, unless you played classical like Segovia. 
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