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.
If you guys want to talk about flamenco, what they call engaging in tertulia, what do you think of the creation of new forms?
Jazz musicians embraced blues, such that they developed and expanded that genre into something else. If purists complained about that 80 years ago or whatever, it sure doesn’t seem to matter now, and I can’t see a similar process taking place in flamenco without serious objections being raised, at least from my vantage point. For example, everyone I know says they like Lole y Manuel, but none of them thinks it’s a valid development of flamenco (insofar as having potential).
Just to be clear, I don’t know the answer, and I don’t care, either, because it all comes down to taste and consensus, and the world is so fu**ed up today that I spend most of my time doing my best to look away.
But I thought the subject might lead to interesting conversation here.
As someone who knows very little about the evolution of forms I can't really offer a great deal.
but surely this development is how an art form grows.
I mean all of the flamenco palos didn't simultaneously appear all at once on some fateful day 150 years ago.
What is the most recently added form to the flamenco reptoire?
I am aware of the ida y vuelta palos that obviously appeared later on after sojourns to the americas. Is that accurate? and is that accurate to say they are a relatively recent addition?
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to Stu)
Well, you and others here understand perfectly well what flamenco is and how it works. Your post reflects this. The past isn’t as important as the future in this regard.
quote:
I am aware of the ida y vuelta palos that obviously appeared later on after sojourns to the americas. Is that accurate? and is that accurate to say they are a relatively recent addition?
You’d think so, but guajiras are a staple on those old 78 rpm recordings and even on cylinders.
The next most likely guess would be bulerías, but there’s a recording of Pastora with Montoya from 1910:
Although there’s a handful of other early examples, it takes a bit of imagination to call them bulerías. Pastora’s recording shows that the style was pretty well consolidated at the time (she made two more recordings in 1912), and the others suggest that those artists were coming to grips with a style that was new to them. Nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that there’s a clear difference before and after Terremoto and Morao.
I’d say that, freaky experiments aside, fandangos libres are the most recent addition to the repertoire.
If you guys want to talk about flamenco, what they call engaging in tertulia, what do you think of the creation of new forms?
Jazz musicians embraced blues, such that they developed and expanded that genre into something else. If purists complained about that 80 years ago or whatever, it sure doesn’t seem to matter now, and I can’t see a similar process taking place in flamenco without serious objections being raised, at least from my vantage point. For example, everyone I know says they like Lole y Manuel, but none of them thinks it’s a valid development of flamenco (insofar as having potential).
Just to be clear, I don’t know the answer, and I don’t care, either, because it all comes down to taste and consensus, and the world is so fu**ed up today that I spend most of my time doing my best to look away.
But I thought the subject might lead to interesting conversation here.
This is a big can of worms and my opinions have changed recently due to a personal discovery and investigation….not ready to open it here on foro, but it relates deeply to what you both are asking and observing (and explains what Stu was wondering about as well). The discovery hinges on my own SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of both flamenco formal structure based on cante, and what I believe the singular origin source repertoire is, with the caveat that I have to admit (scientifically speaking) it could be coincidental correlations. By my check list it is a 5-sigma “type” correlation (music is soft science of course), and the historical information backs it up very well, surprisingly to me. But since I have not yet located an open admission of this relationship, I am still investigating. It is also “problematic” in that it resurrects the long since rejected claim made by Mairena of a “hermetic period” of development…but this explanation based on what I am seeing, would be a requirement historically speaking, if my interpretation is even partly correct.
What I will admit about it is that everyone is right to point out creation of new forms SHOULD be possible in theory, and attempts that have been made rarely or never properly take hold (Canastera being an obvious example of a fandango type form). Blended forms should also be a clue (fandango por solea, the Solea Petenera, and a large etc.), that something “elusive” about the flamenco canon is preventing the proper creation of brand new forms…also the tendency for aficionados and musicians alike (myself included) to gradually move away from the aesthetically pleasing adventurous interpreters of cante melody (Caracol, Camaron etc.) for our personal tastes, toward singers that adhere to some secret/mysterious “orthodoxy”, or more “correct” expressions of melody (Mairena, Tomas Pavon, Chacon, etc.,), which is strangely pointing everybody as they go DEEPER into the genre, toward the past and the core or traditional (earliest) interpretations.
That said, the concept of blues as a formal structure, and people like miles Davis and john Coltrane building on that structure (the 5 settings of kind of blue are blues forms, including Flamenco Sketches), is in fact what has happened with the formal structures of Flamenco, mainly via the guitarists concept of accompaniment. In both cases it would be fair to ask WHY adhere to a formal structure at all? The people that are messing around inside these forms, keeping one foot grounded, tend to be successful, where as any attempts to create new forms in total, tend to fail. All this points to, or reinforces basically, what I have found, which is that yes a singular creative event occurred at some point in the past and this repertoire is carefully guarded despite beautiful artistic upgrades of interpretation.
About bulerias being the “new form”…. In terms of new melody perhaps (using pregones etc,), but the rhythm is solea sped up, and many melodies are simply solea sung faster (excluding the zero versus Pastora adds, and the buleria Corta cambio, the 3 line Solea form is realized in her first versus…in other words something like Joaquin 2 makes a great buleria with or without repeats), and this concept is corroborated by Ocón already in 1860s with the Soledad set at 184 bpm….a tempo we are quite familiar with in dance world as the grey zone between solea por buleria and buleria proper.
There's real life music making, and then there's how we categorize it.
Ricardo's intriguing post suggests a dynamic that flamenco may particularly exemplify, that of having fundamental principles at work which serve to unify and distinguish the category so well that it tends to preserve its identity over time.
On the naming side, how essentially similar (how much of a unity) the instances of the category are impacts the usefulness of the category as a thinking tool--and therefore its longevity.
Then there's how the category is expanded or narrowed over time. When a category is expanded enough, subcategories have to be formed as with Jazz. With flamenco it may be that the current category is so distinctive that it makes sense to keep the original name restricted to it, and let a new name capture any broader category of which it is (sensibly or not) considered to be a part.
Of course the reality in our culture is that much of this is ignored in favor of "convention", since that is widely considered to be all there is to conceptualization (except among the biologists, bless them.)
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to Manitas de Lata)
It’s been three days (Dejar que pasen tres días...), and I thought there’d be more discussion. I’ve got some ideas, but I started this thread to see what others might have to say about the subject. Maybe we’re more interested in what flamenco is than what it could become.
quote:
Raimundo Amador Pata Negra
They’ve taken rock, blues, jazz, etc. and made them sound flamenco. More relevant here, in my opinion, are artists like Chano Domínguez and Diego Amador who’ve used those genres as seasonings to cook up a different kind of flamenco.
Singing is at the core of flamenco, and letras are at the core of singing. So, I’d say that a new form of flamenco would have to have compás (and free-form styles), singing and verse in meter. Obviously, instrumental flamenco would not have singing or verse in meter, just as the performance of a lone dancer or palmero might still be considered flamenco. But those configurations derive from flamenco with singing and are incomplete. That’s my opinion; what’s yours?
Posts: 14845
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to Fawkes)
quote:
There's real life music making, and then there's how we categorize it.
That is correct, but because working professionals have to know the forms and work with artists they might not normally hangout with, the categorization of forms (cantes in particular) need to be understood in some general orthodox way. Meaning, yes there are arm chair aficionados that have opinions on how thing SHOULD be performed, and then there are the actual artists….but most of these same artists are equally erudite when it comes to who/what/where song forms are associated/classified. For example, many guitar players boast that they don’t know “music” or read music or know theory, but NONE would ever boast that they don’t know anything about the cante. Quite the contrary.
Meanwhile, two artists could be performing a single song on stage and in one guy’s head it is “Soleá de Alcalá”, and in the other guy’s head it is Tomás Pavon’s version of Enrique el Mellizo’s cante (meaning from Cádiz), yet to someone else it is “Soleá por Bulería”…and in the end none of these thoughts affect the performance to the general audience, or “right vs wrong”.
quote:
Ricardo's intriguing post suggests a dynamic that flamenco may particularly exemplify, that of having fundamental principles at work which serve to unify and distinguish the category so well that it tends to preserve its identity over time.
That is right, but so long as you understand “it” is controlled by PEOPLE, meaning the artists and aficionados that are trying to keep it from going off the rails. And also that in order to do THAT they are using some learned intuition about it, not knowing it absolutely. Like Paco who said “I don’t know what it is exactly, but I know when it is missing”. The “purist” within us all is following some canon.
quote:
On the naming side, how essentially similar (how much of a unity) the instances of the category are impacts the usefulness of the category as a thinking tool--and therefore its longevity.
Actually, the naming conventions are all over the damn place. Norman’s book with Chavez is highly recommended, and in this situation the case of Rondeña and Taranto/Taranta is particularly funny in terms of how far things can go with “working titles” (see Cantes Mineros, page 201). While most of us at first believe the issue is practical, as in mistakes of the record production company that can’t discern song forms, only first lines of verses (lyrics), it turns out that artistic “clicks” or small circles of artists/aficionados will start using a working title and it passes on as convention. Later someone from this group meets another group and it is soon realized the same cante is referred to differently. Often this is due to context…for example Granaina preceding the Malagueña de Mellizo, or other styles of malagueña, results in a bunch of erudite aficionados and artists believing the Granaina IS a malagueña. And a huge etc. Hence people like Chavez and the Solers (who he is following the style of) is very careful about finding a “name” or title for a specific cante, and pointing out both examples that fit the description, and pointing out when elements of one are borrowed from some other. Simply having a basis to talk about this situation is EXTREMELY helpful…before Norman came on board with his website I did not even know about this concept. Yet had been working with singers for years…thinking they could do whatever they heck they wanted, or what a dancer tells them they needed for a choreography. I didn’t NEED to know these classifications in order to play “correctly” in other words.
And of course after getting my bearings with Soleá and Siguiriya, Buleria por Soleá etc., I suddenly found myself knowing more about cante than the actual singers I worked with. This felt strange, and when I was in discourse with a dancer, he got upset with me that I would follow such classifications…as in there is a skepticism that anybody could have enough knowledge as none artist to do such a thing. I tried to explain it was not about “right or wrong” but about getting your bearings for what is actually going on with one singer vs another one. I have since learned very careful ways of introducing concepts as to not “offend” anyone that might have spent their whole life thinking Mellizo’s cante comes from Alcala. In the end there turns out to be TONS to learn about the genre.
quote:
Then there's how the category is expanded or narrowed over time. When a category is expanded enough, subcategories have to be formed as with Jazz. With flamenco it may be that the current category is so distinctive that it makes sense to keep the original name restricted to it, and let a new name capture any broader category of which it is (sensibly or not) considered to be a part.
Of course the reality in our culture is that much of this is ignored in favor of "convention", since that is widely considered to be all there is to conceptualization (except among the biologists, bless them.)
After my discovery of what I continue to believe to be the origin source of the repertoire, it became crystal clear to me not only that these “working titles” were used in place of, let us say, the “original titles” of the forms, but also WHY they would get mixed up, mixed and matched, etc., over time….and continue to do so despite recording technology. Basically they were appropriated, mostly from other titles already in use for totally different music. That doesn’t mean I can tell for sure exactly WHAT Solitario’s “Caña” and derivative “Los Oles” are (probably Solea/Buleria respectively, but not sure as it is only a verbal description), and those two I chose because they are corroborated by Ford the same year (unless he plagiarized Solitario somehow, which is also possible). But the confusion this leads to, since Solea, Buleria, and Siguiriyas are not clearly delineated by the observed artists, nor the term “flamenco”, suddenly came into focus for me as “understandable” if not deliberate.
So what these recent aficionados that are trying to clearly “classify” the cantes with detailed specifics (artist “creators” line by line, more so than regional groupings which add confusion) are doing, is actually the RIGHT way to get a handle on it all. IMO. So “mellizo 2” with a version by Pavon, is BETTER than, “Cádiz” in other words, but all 3 is ok too.
It’s been three days (Dejar que pasen tres días...), and I thought there’d be more discussion. I’ve got some ideas, but I started this thread to see what others might have to say about the subject. Maybe we’re more interested in what flamenco is than what it could become.
Honestly, most of the members here (myself included) are still in the LEARNING process regarding existing forms and cante melodies. So it is a HEAVY topic honestly. The idea of new form creation, one would think, should be a concern of the maestro members of family dynasties…not us. But I feel I gave my opinion anyway…there is a secret canon blocking any new formal structure creation as being OUTSIDE of what flamenco can permit.
If you want to indulge my opinion, one could ask (in fact it is what I asked myself), is there anything in what I claim to be “the source” that is NOT being used but COULD be? That answer is a big “YES”, to the point where I see some form and say “wow, that looks SUPER flamenco”….it is just that I don’t recognize it. Meaning, someone much more knowledgeable than me might see those same scores (if they can read the style of music well enough) and say “holy smoke Ricardo! How could you not recognize this as the cante of XXXX!!! It is so obvious!”. Or it could be in fact upon my shoulders, since I can see how they could function and are relevant, to introduce them as “new cantes”, (or perhaps “reintroduce” some if in fact they are simply forgotten from the main body of repertoire). The only thing is, the historical back up I have collected suggests a special emphasis on a smaller selected portion of the rep, for good reasons. Meaning, it would better to point them out as relevant and allow only the melody to fit in with say Soleá or another Phrygian form that permits the style of poem. Or cut and paste lines of verse…in fact how the old masters apparently created “new” cantes anyway.
quote:
Singing is at the core of flamenco, and letras are at the core of singing. So, I’d say that a new form of flamenco would have to have compás (and free-form styles), singing and verse in meter.
And so, by the logic, a new poetic form could also function as the basis of a new musical form. This is in fact how the “source” was created…but as I said, there was a reason behind a select few functioning as primary governing forms for same style poems. Consider this for example…4 line solea and 3 line solea are musically different, or the formal structure changes in the moment depending how the lines of verse are delivered with a CHOSEN set melody. The tricky 3 line musical form, transition solea, that can be used with 4 -line verse where the A line is saved up for a necessary repeat of the Cambio and conclusion musical couplet, is a great example of how sophisticated the formal structure can get.
Conversely the Fandango forms enjoy 4 OR 5 line versus, yet these never affect the FORMAL musical structure in anyway. The poems conform to, rather than dictate the musical structure. Then there are the 5+7 metrics that connect Cielito Lindo to Serrana and Siguiriyas. “CLA-vi TO y CA nela, HUE le tu A mi”….there is the famous 7+5 accent. Seguidilla Sevillana is in Ocon, the famous song used by Garcia Lorca. Yet these metrics don’t define the musical forms, which are all super distinct. So there needs to be a special coupling between…with the melody (cante melody) taking the main role of formal structure construction. IMO.
Well said by Ricardo. I play a bulería in the taranta position and I already feel sacrilegious. What about new forms of flamenco then.. I could easily burn in hell for something like this
Nevertheless I really enjoy reading this forum even though my contributions are very few.
Thanks, Ricardo, for putting some time and thought into this. And you, too, Fawkes. Your intricate analysis had me scratching my head, and not in a bad way. I’m guessing your line of work is in either law, psychology, philosophy, computer science or public administration. Or maybe in three of those fields and the other two are hobbies.
quote:
...but most of these same artists are equally erudite when it comes to who/what/where song forms are associated/classified.
I agree. Veteran artists often say they’ve never studied flamenco, and I’ve always insisted that they’ve studied more than anybody: simple things like asking their grandparents about an old cante, taking the time to find the original version of a letra or just using an earworm to their advantage (so important). One of the Moneo brothers was like that. He didn’t really sing, dance or play guitar or anything, but we could talk all day long about flamenco, especially recordings. It wasn’t long before I realized that anything I’d heard, he’d heard 10 times more.
Regarding nomenclature and finding a common language, it is extremely useful and important, as Ricardo says. I brought up the subject to Pohren once, and his only reaction was to sneer, “Academics!” When talking to others, I’ve found it useful to refer to substyles by naming singer, guitarist and letra. You say, “the soleá of Enrique Ortega” and it’s met with a blank stare, so you say, “the apolá that Mairena recorded with Melchor” and you (try to) sing the letra. If they’ve listened to the same stuff you have, they’ll almost always get the reference.
quote:
...it turns out that artistic “clicks” or small circles of artists/aficionados will start using a working title and it passes on as convention.
I suspect that’s the origin of “soleá por bulería.” Someone should track down when and where that started. Maybe the tablaos in Madrid.
quote:
...skepticism that anybody could have enough knowledge as none artist to do such a thing.
quote:
I have since learned very careful ways of introducing concepts as to not “offend” anyone...
Oh, yeah; very touchy subject. On the one hand, we’re all tired of aficionados who know just enough to talk too much, and I can’t even begin to imagine how tiresome it must be for the pros. On the other hand, some aficionados actually do have more theoretical (not practical) knowledge than some respected artists, and I think a lot of those artists realize it and resent it. Like a farming community resenting the ideas of some kid with a degree in agricultural science. Or maybe those artists just prefer actions to words or would rather not talk shop. When I’m in the unenviable position of being seen as a know-it-all or something, I usually try to defuse the situation by saying, “I know everything about cante. Well, except how to do it.” Not all of them laugh.
quote:
Basically they were appropriated, mostly from other titles already in use for totally different music.
You mean like siguiriya/seguiriya deriving from seguidilla? Does it have anything to do with old forgotten styles like tiranas?
quote:
If you want to indulge my opinion...
Yes, I do, but I’d rather you stop being so cryptic. You’ve been talking about this for a few years without saying anything specific, haven’t you? What, do you think someone’s going to steal your idea and make a fortune or get all the glory?
quote:
And so, by the logic, a new poetic form could also function as the basis of a new musical form.
Without resorting to extraneous elements, there’s potential in using existing forms. As I understand it, Manolo Sanlúcar experimented with superimposition of rhythms (one over another), or maybe juxtaposition is the right word (one after another). I’ve listened to only a little of “Locura de brisa y trino” and it’s not for me. Maybe someone here can explain what’s going on in that recording. I saw Marina Heredia sing a soleá to the siguiriya rhythm (or vice versa), and it all flowed so naturally that I didn’t even realize it was a hybrid until about a minute into the performance. I liked that a little more. Hell, Rick Deckard would have liked it. I mentioned it to David Serva, who scoffed at the idea. Typical David, but at least he delivered the goods and actually sang an example to make his point.
When I said that instrumental flamenco is incomplete, I didn’t mean it in a disparaging way. Paco’s contribution to flamenco in that sense is comparable to his contribution to guitar playing, and I think that kind of iteration is the most likely candidate for a new form of flamenco, not without its parallels to my example of blues and jazz.
Finally, I have to add that you should proceed with caution regarding Chaves. I say that not only because he struck a deal behind my back and has since refused to pass on any revenues from book sales, effectively robbing me of five years of hard work, but also because he doesn’t understand how music works. That’s worth repeating: With no knowledge whatsoever of musicology or even musical skills, he coauthored an extremely detailed treatise on flamenco. He started using the word “grado” after he read my references to scale degrees and asked what it meant. I explained the concept, but his use of “grado” is something he made up to describe an entirely different thing (see footnote on page 15). The word isn’t used that way in Spanish, and I advised him to find another way to express himself, but he thinks he’s right about everything, regardless of facts. Luis Soler argued with him at length about some attribution in the book and eventually had to give up. More than once, Chaves gave me information that turned out to be untrue, and he was fanatically obsessed with secrecy before the book was published. I mean borderline-crazy obsessed, as a novel researcher and as a compulsive-obsessive type. He’s able to “remember” cantes in his head, and his research of bibliographic references is exhaustive; I’ll give him that, but, during our collaboration, he was unwilling to consider reasonable doubts about the value of some reference in an old newspaper, for example, and a little too willing to disregard the contribution of gitano artists. If the organizers of the La Unión festival and competition haven’t taken his work seriously, it should be a big red flag. Honestly, I think he hallucinated much of what he put into that book.
Editing my post because I forgot to address this:
quote:
I play a bulería in the taranta position and I already feel sacrilegious
No need to feel that way. Parrilla did it, too. I've mentioned this a few times here and have just checked to make sure. It's solo guitar at a live performance, starting with soleá and ending por bulería, all in F sharp. Even Melchor did that with Chocolate. Starts as cante minero and ends with a jabera or something (cante abandolao) played por bulería.
I suspect that’s the origin of “soleá por bulería.” Someone should track down when and where that started. Maybe the tablaos in Madrid.
From what I can tell, Sabicas guitar solos. This is probably NOT an invention of Decca records or whatever, but rather the maestro himself or dancers he worked with. Why?, He plays Solea por medio (having already used Soleá as the title for the por arriba version), and fairly quickly, just like his hero Montoya, speeds up into Buleria for the rest of the piece until its conclusion. Soleá/bulería would have been appropriate, but it ending up as “por”. Considering there seems already to exist “Bulería por Soleá” as a description of cante (that used to not mix with Soleá proper, but eventually does, adding more confusion), it is clear how a title for a guitar solo might get mixed up with formal cante and baile structures. So basically, since the 1950s or so. Until I come across other better evidence this is serving as a good explanation for me. Ramon Montoya’s “bulería” was the exact same form as recorded solo…so it functioned as a working title for guitar players I assume until Sabicas started delineating the mix of the two forms on record jackets.
quote:
Oh, yeah; very touchy subject. On the one hand, we’re all tired of aficionados who know just enough to talk too much, and I can’t even begin to imagine how tiresome it must be for the pros. On the other hand, some aficionados actually do have more theoretical (not practical) knowledge than some respected artists, and I think a lot of those artists realize it and resent it
VERY TOUCHY. Hence, coming across something far outside of the mainstream thought that I intuitively believe relates to cante creation, I have been extremely careful in presenting my findings. It WiLL come out eventually, but I am Slooooooooow at researching, and I really need to be careful HOW I present this controversial thing. I can both inspire people with the info, or break people’s hearts, and I want to find a way to maximize the former, and minimize the latter.
quote:
You mean like siguiriya/seguiriya deriving from seguidilla? Does it have anything to do with old forgotten styles like tiranas?
Yes exactly, however, it is clear the title is the SAME but the music is NOT related…correct? Other than poetic meter…and hence usage of the TITLE. The book from late 1700s (I will find it if you want, we have the link here on foro) explains Seguidilla, Tirana, and Polo, all together. “What IS THAT weird Arabic “sounding” thing you are singing?”…”Oh this??…um, this is OUR “polo”…”polo gitano” if you want…”. That is type of thing I suspect was going on, based on the limited evidence. Romance, Tiento, Seguidilla, Polo, (Tirana is simply not used anymore), Caña, Fandango, big etc…, none having to do with the CANTE and its formal structure, but appropriated for various reasons, perhaps even the poems were altered to fit the flamenco forms deliberately and carried the title with. In said book you see many 8 syllable 4 line verses that could work as “polo”…but I simply dont have the time or knowledge to corroborate Borrows or Demofilo letras to any. But someone with interest could possibly scan and discover something there. Planeta’s “Romance” has that one letra with “Soledad” in the verse. This type of thing can affect the situation as well, as to why a previous working title gets replaced. Flamencologists would have us believe this guy didn’t know “Soleá” in 1838, but “learned” it later when it appears in the 1850’s newspaper as part of his performance? Doesn’t really make sense. Swapping a song title is way more possible, as it is STILL being done today.
quote:
Yes, I do, but I’d rather you stop being so cryptic. You’ve been talking about this for a few years without saying anything specific, haven’t you? What, do you think someone’s going to steal your idea and make a fortune or get all the glory?
Understood, my sincere apologies. For YOU personally, I am open to share everything in private. The reasons for not on foro yet? Well, look at any argument that happens in open air on here. People want to argue about glue and a zip lock bag!!! For such a TOUCHY subject as cante, well, for some of us it is our entire lives! I mean DEEP feelings about this subject. Some people I shared with don’t get what the big deal is about, seems obvious and even WHO CARES?? But wow, for me, it has been some years down a rabbit hole and lot of emotion involved. As you know, some people are deeper in this art and culture than others. Kid gloves is how I am working with it, out of respect for them, and when you know exactly what it is, you will understand, regardless if you agree with me or not.
I WAS concerned about “credit” as you say, or people stealing the concept very easily as their own and taking credit….but this was only AFTER I started looking through flamencology (never really having done it before, wanting to see if anyone had seen this connection already). I have come away very disturbed by academia. Resurrection of Mairena is very problematic, as they have constructed layers over decades against what he suggested. “Hermetic” and as YOU said “CRYPTIC”….that is the exact RIGHT word. Anything like that can’t be “disproved”, and nobody likes it. It is literally in my title of the main hypothesis I have developed. Red flags all around. “CRYPTO”, underground, secret cabal, etc. Conspiracy theory garbage. My concern is NOT that someone will want to take credit for this thing, rather, it would be so easy to sabotage the whole thing just because some people won’t like what is insinuated. As I said it hinges on MY SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the MUSICAL evidence, and as can be seen on foro, it is VERY difficult for me to bring people into my personal view point on almost ANY flamenco subject. Nails, strings, guitars, compas, cante…etc. Even I show a YouTube obvious thing, there will still be arguments. That is fine, to a certain extant, but with regard to THIS sensitive thing, I continue to be careful. I have “protected” (copyright, March 2024) the idea recently anyway, so I am no longer concerned with plagiarism, rather, high academics throwing a wrench into the thing, as they did with Mairena and too many others. To understand the musical interpretation one need to be able to discern Joaquin solea from Serneta. There are even some artists can’t do that, and even some think it is the same song just delivered a little different.
I literally need that level of discernment and agreement, and plus understanding of written notations, and harmonizations of melody, to take people with me. In my personal circle I have approached the thing different ways to non-musicians. For an ethnomusicologist that sings a little, I simply showed a primary source like “notice anything about this melody?”, to not bias it, and yes he saw what I saw. For my old guitar teacher, scores plus he wanted to hear an example. For the skeptical pro cantaor, I was lucky he convinced himself via a certain melody he said his father told him as a youngster, was the oldest cante he knew….coincidentally I had found this same phrase and a YouTube video of a digital keyboard playing it alone in that moment convinced him to trust me (Ostia!!! He exclaimed). For two female dancers I forced them to sing back to me the first delivered line of Joaquin 3…took like 15 minutes in the car before I was convinced both ladies understood the first line (talking about the two compases as the line repeats and melodically creates the structure before the cambio). THEN I pulled up what I feel is the origin material and they heard it and started screaming with excitement. Months later they forgot the entire exercise, or rather lost the melody in their heads. But remembered I had convinced them none the less.
So NONE of that can be done in a concise way via academia. I have tried. Too much going on to convince every individual that way unless I can walk them through it. So I have spent now 3 or more years digging for historical evidence, building a “case”. I am very close to exhausted and will put it out somehow.
quote:
Finally, I have to add that you should proceed with caution regarding Chaves.
Understood. The musical examples were helpful and I was skeptical and careful as I went through it. Every time I said to myself based on the recording “that line sounds suspiciously like the other cante X”…and sure enough Chavez was always careful to point out the same. So what ever limits of music training he has, he CAN hear the melodies “correctly” from my subjective view. I get that once again, someone’s Taranta is another guy’s Cartagenera, and this again my point about “touchy”, this is artists life’s work. It is just helpful to have SOME definitive title to point to and work from, vs vagueness and “expressive feelings”, melodic arcs, etc. I am very sad you had personal problems with this project, but honestly the work you BOTH have done is monumental and important from my perspective and I hope in the future you too can appreciate its value, even if it needs to be edited or something. You deserve cash for that work, and I would be happy to send you some considering its value to ME.
The malagueña book I have is only better than yours because they transcribed each cante into notation. At any time this can also be done with your work and the Soler’s earlier stuff and this will only enhance the value of this stuff. Conversely the transcriptions of flamencologists I have seen are going to be problematic at times. There is a huge gap in what ever YOU guys are doing, and what they are doing as academics.
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
Norman thanks for your input. I enjoy your and Ricardo's well informed discussion. As far as this thread not getting much response, at least for me it's not lack of interest but ignorance. I have nothing valuable to add. E.g.
quote:
I forced them to sing back to me the first devlieverd line of Joaquin 3…took like 15 minutes in the car before I was convinced both ladies understood the first line (talking about the two compases as the line repeats and melodically creates the structure before the cambio). THEN I pulled up what I feel is the origin material and they heard it and started screaming with excitement.
I think most foro members would struggle to recognise, let alone hum or sing Joaquin 3. For myself I only have a vague idea that Ricardo could be referring to hitting the 6th/C, and then later hitting 7th/D before the cambio.
Any opinion of mine on new forms of flamenco is worth nothing! Except to say that I think it would have to be based on a deep understanding of cante. And I mean a lived knowing of cante, not an academic/propositional knowing. I look forward to Ricardo publishing his book/findings one day.
Thank you, Orson. Heh, I think you posted just as I was getting ready to do the same. You've probably got some of those cante melodies in your head without realizing it. Some favorite recording of yours.
quote:
From what I can tell, Sabicas guitar solos.
I’d be surprised if that were the case, because he was practically unknown in Spain until his return visit in the mid-1960s. Even then, his influence was on guitarists.
My understanding of the por part of the nomenclature is that it means “by way of,” the first word referring to the singing and the second word to the rhythm. So, bulería por soleá is when bulerías are sung to the soleá rhythm. Conversely, soleá por bulería should be when soleás are sung to the bulería rhythm.
In “Mundo y formas” (1963), Mairena and Ricardo Molina wrote about both kinds (fast and slow) in the part of the book that deals with bulerías. Their first comment is to state that aficionados use both terms (soleá por bulería and bulería por soleá) and that they refer to the same thing. On the next page, they describe two kinds of bulerías: (1) bulerías al golpe or bulerías para cantar (what we call bulerías por soleá) and (2) bulerías ligadas or bulerías para bailar (the fast kind we know today). For them, both kinds were just bulerías. This idea is seen on the labels of 78 rpm recordings, where the slow and the fast kinds are titled simply “Bulerías.”
quote:
I have come away very disturbed by academia.
Yeah, it stinks.
quote:
Resurrection of Mairena is very problematic, as they have constructed layers over decades against what he suggested.
It used to be worse: immediately after his death and into the 2000s. Or maybe things have always been better in that regard here in Jerez (I moved here in 2006). The words pureza and flamencólogo are terms of praise here, believe it or not. I think Algeciras is another area where most aficionados are pro-Mairena.
About the book, sorry for whining, but I will always tell people the truth about what happened whenever the subject comes up. I’ve had my say (without mentioning that rat Alberto of El Flamenco Vive), so I’ll stop now. The book’s main conclusions are fine; I wouldn’t pay much attention to the finer details, though. There’s usually too much personal variation in the cantes mineros to establish attributions in such detail.
For example, you ever notice that the first sung line of Torre’s taranta or whatever it is (Ay, que ¿adónde andará mi muchacho?) has the III-V-III arc heard in certain versions of the siguiriyas of el Viejo de la Isla and Francisco la Perla 2? Check out examples of the arc in the links below (look for III-V-III in the texts) and compare it to Torre’s cante. He sang that arc in exactly one recording of siguiriyas, shortly before he died. My guess is that, in both cases, he sang it just to add some variety and that, in the case of his cante minero, he knew exactly what he was doing when he did it: importing an extraneous element. His other taranta or whatever it is doesn’t start with that arc. Not a word about that in the book.
Posts: 14845
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to orsonw)
quote:
I think most foro members would struggle to recognise, let alone hum or sing Joaquin 3. For myself I only have a vague idea that Ricardo could be referring to hitting the 6th/C, and then later hitting 7th/D before the cambio.
It is not supposed to be “easy” but, point being my struggle with getting people to “hear it like I hear it” is challenging. The main thing with that cante and similar ones, the first delivered line implies Am early (first three syllables usually you can play Am or F.), because the melody climbs up and settles down on A quickly. As the line of remaining 5 syllables goes up and settles on B, it implies Tonic E has the resolution on the end of the line (normally on count 10 if sung cuadrao). But the lyrics connect or circle back early to imply a repeat of the same line for the next phrase or compas. The rest of the melody goes up touching either tonic E or D (7th) then dropping to A for the A minor harmony (again, on 10 if cuadrao)…so long story short. Instead of a 3 line verse idea where the first line goes to Am as normal solea does, it goes to E first, then to Am on repeat. So the FORMAL structure has a reversed harmonic structure in the first sung line, in otherwords, then proceeds as normal. And the standard linking of the lines of verse, almost seems designed to inform the guitarist of the change of structure. But we don’t need any lyrics to realize the MELODY and the fact it informs or creates the formal structure of chords underneath it. I had the dancers only sing on “la” the whole melody so that I knew they understood it on its own. And again, just that first two compases was the goal, as the cambio and conclusion are pretty similar to other Soleas.
I’d be surprised if that were the case, because he was practically unknown in Spain until his return visit in the mid-1960s. Even then, his influence was on guitarists.
Right, I was surprised too, however, the issue is TIME. Meaning there it is on the jacket of 1956 Decca LP I got from my dad (this has your Rondeña with letra of Taranta of Jose de la Luz, etc.), where it appears. I have yet to find the earlier example. Considering the term was in use by Sabicas, it means the DANCERS used the term as well, and likely the dance circle that connects to spain was using it, before it seeps into Andalusian cante lexicon. The first time I find it in use by cante aficionados is regarding the “Soleá corta” o “Soleá por Bulería”, in the Rito y Geografia episode “Soleares II”, introducing Sordera and his rueda of Frijones 2. They admit it is interchangeable with “bulería por Soleá”, which we know is not true for cante. In my limited experience, it is literally this frijones 2 cante the dancers prefer in the dance portion they refer to as “Soleá por bulería”.
Again, I agree it doesn’t make much sense, however if you think of escobilla as “gears”, first gear is super slow and called “Soleá” and the sped up version is second gear, SolXbul, and 3rd gear is bulería proper (the supida could be a 4th gear super fast version to conclude a dance). Of course when solea are sung literally “por bulerías” we just call it bulerías, punto. So until I find a usage BEFORE 1956, I have to go with this Sabicas thing.
12:25
If we can fill the gaps regarding its usage before these examples, maybe we get a better answer?
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
For example, you ever notice that the first sung line of Torre’s taranta or whatever it is (Ay, que ¿adónde andará mi muchacho?) has the III-V-III arc heard in certain versions of the siguiriyas of el Viejo de la Isla and Francisco la Perla 2? Check out examples of the arc in the links below (look for III-V-III in the texts) and compare it to Torre’s cante. He sang that arc in exactly one recording of siguiriyas, shortly before he died. My guess is that, in both cases, he sang it just to add some variety and that, in the case of his cante minero, he knew exactly what he was doing when he did it: importing an extraneous element. His other taranta or whatever it is doesn’t start with that arc. Not a word about that in the book.
Frustratingly lost my post on this. . Gonna try to do it from memory.
So warning, nuts and bolts coming!! Simply put, for a guy like me that wants note by note details, and puts weight in them, “melodic arc” does not work for me. “Musical phrase” is more appropriate and is a general way to talk that includes rhythmic length and expression, but is extremely imprecise. Slowing down flamenco singers I hear them hitting precise intervals, and often again and again in a well rehearsed way, not random or improvised. On small scales, we can call these phrases “melismas” to some degree if they occur on single vowels. These don’t have to always be part of the base line melody, but in some cases are important enough or repeated the same way often enough that they SHOULD be. But in order to do it right, we need to break them down note by note and not be vague about it. So I am going to do that with the second siguiriyas of Torre you give, and then the Taranto of M. Torre.
I believe you want “Desgracia” to be the spot that contains the III-V-III arc, correct? Hope so. So here is my break down starting from “Que-desgracia”, in por medio key.
Que-De(s) is Bb-C. Gra-ah is a split single vowel Bb-C. Ah is connecting from the previous C note to D-E, on E vowel change to “ci” of “ci-a” is a trill that needs to be slowed down (not going to do it) for precision (EDIT:see my next post, no trill just E repeated). Ah resolves down to D, held. Ah continues to work down the scale like this C-Bb-C…Bb-A-Bb… Yo resolves to tonic A. The phrase continues “te-en-go ma-“, Bb-C split vowel, Bb-A…etc.
So long story short, the “III-V-III arc” is actually II-III-IV-V-V-IV…which as a phrase is targeting D with appoggiatura, to then descend D-C-Bb-A, with melismas or mordants on each scale degree down. If we simplify the melody to the syllables que-des-gra-a-ci-a-a-a-yo…then it is Bb-C-Bb-C-E-D-C-Bb-A. So for me, the thing to track are the notes attached to syllables rather than scalar happenings on open vowels. So now, if we conclude that the same melisma occurs in a Taranto (Chaves correctly connects his version to Pedro el Morato and “Tanto”, great name ), we must ask how important is it to the melody itself? To do this, we want to slow it down and again get it note for note.
Here it is starting at 1:24, and I recommend slow down half speed or more, use guitar capo 2 por medio (same key as siguiriyas for comparison).
Ah-hay-eee is Bb to C, split vowel diphthong to eee vowel. Three notes, Bb-C-C. “Que-an” is only one note sound, C, holding pitch with “nnnn” sound. “De-an” again one sound, C holding “nnnnn”. “Da-ra—-“, again two notes both C, but with “ra—-“ is the “melodic arc” same as you pointed out in siguiriyas. Ah is coming from previous C up D-E natural. But what happens next is important distinction. “Mi” is E flat!! Perhaps not perfectly intonated relative to guitar, but a clear flat expression before the D note. If he was doing this in Siguiriyas it could be what would be revealed by slowing it down like this. Again not perfect Eb, but knowing the context of minero cantes in general, where this note is super important, I feel confident that is the intention on the word “mi”. “Mu-cha-ah” is D-D-C. “Cho” is Bb, the target resolution note. As we all know the harmonic context is so different here, with F7-Bb being implied by the voice, as do so many levante cantes.
So my opinion on the “III-V-III arc” being relevant to both cantes? Absolutely YES it is the same vocal technique and scalar notes applied. If it turns out a slow down of the siguiriyas reveals an Eb hiding in there, it is literally the same device. However, I don’t think it is super helpful to bring in unrelated song form structures. I am sure we might find this same device in Fandango, Solea etc, probably done the same ways in various contexts. To me the context needs to incorporate the harmonic back drop, the line of verse, syllabic structure etc. I think if Chaves had mentioned the device it is more like “singing trivia” rather than a defining characteristic of the melodic form overall, and might serve to confuse someone to think, wrongly, that Siguiriyas and Taranto are the same or related cantes somehow. So for me it is interesting performance characteristic but I don’t have problem that he did not notice or included it in his description. Much more important for me was the morato connection.
So now I am going to tie this in to my own research and admit an example I have on hand. 501 years ago existed an octasyllabic text that used a similar melody to the one Torre is delivering in this Taranto example. In order to understand the difference, let’s pretend to swap out the same lyric for the ancient theme. We have to omit the non-Text “ay” that he attached to the start for it to work. So here are the 8 syllables with the ORIGINAL notes [] compared to his notes in ().
For me the correlation is quite literal in this case. 5 hundred years ago the original “key” this melody is in is 7th or 8th mode, or G mixolydian, and starts on D (DDDDFEDC). Hence the confusing “flat-7” that characterizes the Levante cantes from the Fandango natural scale coplas. The explanation for the connection historically, is that 500 years ago the melody discussed was repurposed for several different text settings, and a certain musician was given these texts and told to create new melodies around them. What I believe to be the basis of the fandango proper happened to be constructed by one of these text, and hence has much in common with the formal structure, however he used the 5th or 6th mode instead of the 8th mode as the basis for his new theme (mode 6 is F “hypo-lydian” with a lower tessitura than mode 5, tonic F “Lydian”, essentially making the song in C major, compared to one in G mixolydian).
RE: Creating new forms of flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
Thanks for that Joaquin 3 breakdown Ricardo, that makes sense. Glad I am on the right track. When I've studied Perrate, Mairena, or Indio Gitano it's the sung 'a' and 'b' notes that lead me to Amin and E, when I play along with the guitar (it's often not cuadrao even Indio Gitano).
Seems the 6th/C and 7th/D are not critical features for accompaniment tonos, except following them as they may lead to the a and b. Even though they are defining features of the cante style and for me the 7th/D gives a great cante moment of feeling/expression. (and as you've just written those fast melodic lines are not random but precise and essential to cante)
Apologies for my baby level cante questions on this thread.
Thanks for your analysis of Torres and your own research. I will take some time to listen and learn.
I believe you want “Desgracia” to be the spot that contains the III-V-III arc, correct?
No, not that one. I said to look for “III-V-III” in the texts. It’s all clearly indicated if you want to take a minute or two to look carefully.
Torre’s cante with the III-V-III arc is “Dicen que duermes sola” in the style Francisco la Perla 2.
Apologies for misunderstanding the spot/variant. Well, the “desgracia” one I found and slowed down, it is just C-D-E on “ah”, then Ci-ah is E-D, making the “arc” C-D-E-E-D, where D is held (briefly). No Eb in other words.
At 1:44
Dicen Que duermes is the same basic thing but does not hang on to the D: here at 2:17, since he sings the “arc” fast, I recommend .25 speed.
Di-Cen is C, C, Que—- is the drawn out vowel, Bb-C-D-E. Due— is very drawn out, E-D-C-Bb-C-Bb-A Er-me is the conclusion, Bb-A.
So I guess what you are hearing as related to Taranto is the 3 syllables on C, (lumping the Bb-C as just C perhaps), and it climbs to E. Then “Duermes” is the long scale down to Bb but up to C then down to A, and all that together (CCBbCDEEDCBbC…) you lump together as “III-V-III arc” spread across two syllables “que and Due”?
If that is not the spot, then again I apologize and admit, no the text is not clear. If this IS the spot, and the point of the III-V-III is that these melodies are bypassing the D note held emphasis, then I don’t get why you hear it in the Taranto line, because it clearly emphsized the D with two distinct syllables (Mu-cha-) before descending to C again (same vowel). And, of course, the point of contention or argument perhaps is my reading of the Eb on “mi” is certainly not heard in the Siguiriyas examples (same phrases repeat a strong E natural in both siguiriyas), and if agreed upon, would be a major distinction between the two lines.
I do admit that all three use the C-D-E fast scalar run on a single vowel.
Printable Version
But I feel I gave my opinion anyway…there is a secret canon blocking any new formal structure creation as being OUTSIDE of what flamenco can permit. 
. Gonna try to do it from memory. 
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