Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
In other words, the downbeat is strummed with a rajeo, the upbeat with an i upstroke.
exactly. Well, not sure how you do it but that is exactly how I do it. He admits it is one most popular way and there are others, so it is an approximate idea of the concept. Consider this dude is not a guitar player, he does a better job at explaining the thing than actual players, which is pretty amazing to me. I personally think that the transcription by Murciano's piano playing son expresses what we would do today as rasgueado, as those ridiculous ascending arpeggios. At least Ocón recognized the function as grace note rolls...which is what they are.
So I am curious if you think the guy I linked regarding Sanz expertise is doing it "correct" or if he has too much modern interpretation? I find that there are commonality with South American styles to what he is showing. You have to consider the Andes music for example (charango and guitar) is very well preserved 17th century influence. They are pretty closed and traditional Indians and I doubt they were corrupted with say Romantic guitar or Flamenco practices of the early 20th century, the stuff came in during colonial Spanish times and stuck. To my thinking, that tradition can be used in conjunction with the treatises to give posslibe overlapping clues to performance practice.
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
We should bring back the names of some of these rasgueados. The Graneado, Chorlitazo, Golpe, Graneado doble, Chorlitazo Doble, Rasgueado Seco.
I think that there are many players throughout the world that have preserved or rediscovered the rasgueado. You just have to look at their whole catalog. I have Several Baroque players in a playlist that play Sanz Fandango and each interpretation is historically informed. They improvise to some extent. But Lislevand, for example, can sometimes add some modern (dare I say ), jazzy interpretations. I have been mostly interested in Passacaglio and Chacona because the descending tetrachord is statistically more common in them, but I was reading an author who made the point that fmodal playing left a lot more room for messing with non chord tones, clausulas, and form. -----5--- -----8--- -----6--- -----7--- -----5--- Like this chord, found in Sanz and Bach. Its a seventh chord with a tonic pedal in the bass. The fifth in the upper voice can also be a pedal, yet they both use it as an unprepeared dissonance, an autonomous chord. Pretty cool. My friend played flamenco and mariachi and he was always commenting on similarities and differences in rajeo, form, harmony, etc. I think Mexico preserved a lot and there are those scholars that believe some of the forms have deep roots in the Americas.
For me, the Ocon is not how we do it today. Yes, that gesture is still used, but flamenco has evolved. Tjhe guitar was still finding its way at the beginning of the century. You can hear those very early players and the cante and accompaniment are not codified. If you play Ocon, it might sound flamenco, but would play that rasgueado the way he does, beat after beat. It gets boring. And, there are some other transcriptions that show piano vs guitar. The guitarists were using some Cyclic patterns that did not always follow the cante, while the pianists were hinting at tonal accompaniment in which the chords in the piano support a chord tone in the cante.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
I am looking through a method from 1860 that only refers to a golpe and what seems to be pimax, which would be backward (a la Ben Woods - didn't know him personally but a friend of friends, DEP)
quote:
We should bring back the names of some of these rasgueados. The Graneado, Chorlitazo, Golpe, Graneado doble, Chorlitazo Doble, Rasgueado Seco.
Circling back with the above quotes, your wording is confusing such that you have an 1860 "source" unnamed, but then you confuse Ocon and Marin by date. What is the source of your screen shot?
Anyway, in the picture after describing the backward Ben Woods Rasgeado he says "o al contrario", which means the exact normal way. If that is 1860, it corroborates the Ocon 1860 ish account of normal rasgeado on the beat (basically we would notatate it as a triplet 16th from pinky to middle and index lands on the beat). Wavy lines and slash marks are all convenient notation, but in modern times we recognize the need for more rhythmic clarity. AND for what it is worth, in terms of "interpretation from a modern lens", the thing described by both (your guy says "doble" which infers an up stroke with index after doing the finger or fingers, down) where you have a vauge rhythmic expression downward, and a clear up beat on the up stroke from index (I get this from both descriptions), there is a subtle difference between 5 notes as 3 16th triplets, and two 8th notes, vs continuous 5 tuplets. I mean I can demonstrate easily how these two concepts could have been observed in practice and thought of as "the same thing". Like on counts 1-3 of alegrias for example.
So what are the sources of that "Graneado" etc., is that Marin or your 1860 source?
quote:
Like this chord, foiud in Sanz and Bach. Its a seventh chord with a tonic pedal in the bass.
D-A-C#-G-A?? Is that right? Or did you mean 7-5-6-8-5? If you mean the first, I would love to know sources in Bach or Sanz. (Dmaj7sus4)
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
So what are the sources of that "Graneado" etc., is that Marin or your 1860 source?
Those are all Marin.
The Bach should have double bars because each measure is taken out of its musical context. Just trying to show that the Baroque guys already had an advanced concept of non-chord tones.
Out of context, one interpretation would be Dmaj7sus4, but it resolves to Dm. So I guess if you want to take a modern interpretation DM7sus4 can resolve to Dm but in Sanz and Bach these chords move around the circle to the chord they would normally lead to.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
Out of context, one interpretation would be Dmaj7sus4, but it resolves to Dm. So I guess if you want to take a modern interpretation DM7sus4 can resolve to Dm but in Sanz and Bach these chords move around the circle to the chord they would normally lead to.
I guess we are posting over top of each other in real time. I will take a break so you can perhaps check some of my edits.
I used chord chart speak, not theory. The "Major 7" in chords speak does not imply a major triad, unless that is all you write "Dmaj7" like that. Sus 2 and 4 imply no third, otherwise we use "add4" etc. In context the pedal bass is clear that this is a functioning V-i type thing moving from Gm/D-A7/D-Dm. So I don't see that as "autonomous" dissonant chord really. The pedal is making the dissonance, basically anticipating the tonic. Bach looks like sequence to me, but you say it is out of context. He liked to use the augemented chord in minor keys where a normal triad works just as well, but again, these occur often in passages called "sequence" were we cycle through and these dissonances resolve nicely as tension-release. But otherwise I am not real clear what this has to do with ragueado, except I guess you are saying dissonant chords arrise with rasgueado practice ?
quote:
For me, the Ocon is not how we do it today. Yes, that gesture is still used, but flamenco has evolved. Tjhe guitar was still finding its way at the beginning of the century. You can hear those very early players and the cante and accompaniment are not codified. If you play Ocon, it might sound flamenco, but would play that rasgueado the way he does, beat after beat. It gets boring. And, there are some other transcriptions that show piano vs guitar. The guitarists were using some Cyclic patterns that did not always follow the cante, while the pianists were hinting at tonal accompaniment in which the chords in the piano support a chord tone in the cante.
That you added this earlier. It absolutely is the same except now we have, as I said, replaced pinky with index up. Yes it is an incessant boring gallop unless you change the grace note rasguedo into 5 tuplets or "connected" rolls. IN fact, this is already heard on early recordings. There is a subtle difference between a gallop and a connected roll if we alter the timing of the same finger pattern. (cami down, i up, is all it is). For me the tradition has enough baggage we still carry and hear on early audio to take it back to these vague 19th century verbal descriptions and transcriptions and realize, not much has changed. To claim there is some massively different animal there that has evolved is, to me, harder to prove than that it is just the same tradition that we still have, misinterpreted by outside observers to the same degree it still is today necessitating deeper study or immersion.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
We should bring back the names of some of these rasgueados. The Graneado, Chorlitazo, Golpe, Graneado doble, Chorlitazo Doble, Rasgueado Seco.
So I went through these examples, and after getting a handle on it, I double checked his contextual examples to confirm. Pretty sure I get it all (Marin). Keep in mind please I have been teaching for like 25 years and that consists of 95% rasguedo technique, fixing mistakes and correcting my own concepts along the way, coupled with the fact we already saw Marin is "rhythmically challenged" with the mathematically repeating errors, and lack of consistency.
Graneado is expressing the fingers "brushing" across the strings. He seems to be highly concerned with this concept of what we today think of as "brushing vs flicking" the fingers into the strings. Arguments continue today about when one should or should not do one vs the other, and I guess based on this, this was an issue long ago as well. So he represents the single finger bouncing across all the strings from bass to treble. Most of us teachers need to correct that concept when we see students doing this as it will mess up the timing and clarity of the needed compas expressions. Marin distinguishes vaguely how the timing here should differ from the "flicked" rolls and accents later.
To be clear, however, he is not wanting you to do this as a "connected roll" just yet. His very misleading score representation of 3 fast arpeggios spread over two beats stoping on a single high E note on count 3, does not make sense when you see the "Gr" applications in context. He admits that for each rasgueado one would need a full score, and so he is going to simplify it. As each finger bounces over the strings you get 24 notes (6x4 fingers), and he explains he only wants to write 16th notes. So, even though he only wants 4 strokes per "movement", and he clarifies a three beat compás would have 3 movements, a 2/4 only two movements, etc., yet, in the pieces he represents a single movement by 4 32n notes "galloping" into the beats (mathematically wrong). This is the identical gallop to the Ocón description, except that Ocón does not specify how to gallop, or even that you might or might not do a connected roll. He leaves it open as "roll" that covers the beat and uses slash notation.
But simply put "Graneado" is a "brushing" gallop strum. (I teach iami, as this has become the standard). And I personally minimize the brushing affect, even though I don't want students loading the fingers or flicking them.
Next is the Rasgueado "seco", and unlike the "brushing" across the strings, he wants a fast strike across. SB is the full arm "bashing out" down strokes on a full chord. The 4-voice chord is the same idea but only with index finger, and it seems the return stroke occurs on the upbeats (perfectly analogous the Ocón description of the same use of index). So the voicing of the chord clues you in to the technique. Contextual examples are all very clear with this.
Chorlitazo, is apparently the flicked accented rasgueado. M finger seems preferred, but we know today we do this same thing with either finger. He will distinguish the same technique with index under "Golpe" where he wants this accent to involve the fleshy golpe done at the same time with m and a fingers. He represents this M accent by voicing only 3 notes of a chord, 5,4 and 3. This is due to the flicking thing, and today the only distinction is we rest pulgar on 6 when doing this. "Golpe" with index gets 4 strings, as it follows through I guess (clear in the illustration).
[EDIT: the following ideas I have revised after further discussion with Romerito. No 5-tuplets].
Rasgueado double (Gr-D) he wants the same brushing rasgueado with a return stroke. Unlike the seco return stroke with index, he wants you to do this with pulgar. Basically this is a 5-tuplet "abanico", that today is more common done as triplets by omitting pinky and m finger. The ridiculous arpeggio representation has double high E in the middle that represents the illustration of getting the thumb under the high E to do the up stroke. The first use of this is Soleares p. 144, and as I am saying, it is the typical ten messy strokes over counts 1 and 2 accenting count 3, then a seco up stroke with i. Pretty standard, except we use return stroke with i instead of with pulgar. He goes as far to equate the return stroke with P to a piano player dragging his thumb across the white keys.
Chorlitazo doble...So this is the loaded and flicked continuous roll with fingers. The issues with this one are numerous. First, he wants you to do this over the fingerboard, exactly as Devilhand once made fun of Sabicas for. Next, he does not describe a return stroke meaning he wants you to do the Jaun Serrano roll. Over the neck. And last, he represents this as 3 bass strings only (makes sense since you are flicking off the thumb), but with 6 tuplets??? It means if you start as he says with pinky you have a problem ending. Perhaps he means this is exactly like Juan Serrano (starting with index), then it makes sense as written, 3 repetitions ending on index. The second beat would start on ring finger. I have to wonder if he could even execute this (it is not in any contextual example). After this he claims this is all the known rasgueados. The last thing is the "arrastre" as we think of it today, done with pulgar nail. (Nuñez demonstrates this in Encuentro on Taranta).
I maybe missed some detail, but that is how it reads to me.
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
So I went through these examples, and after getting a handle on it, I double checked his contextual examples to confirm. Pretty sure I get it all (Marin). Keep in mind please I have been teaching for like 25 years and that consists of 95% rasguedo technique, fixing mistakes and correcting my own concepts along the way, coupled with the fact we already saw Marin is "rhythmically challenged" with the mathematically repeating errors, and lack of consistency.
Graneado is expressing the fingers "brushing" across the strings. He seems to be highly concerned with this concept of what we today think of as "brushing vs flicking" the fingers into the strings. Arguments continue today about when one should or should not do one vs the other, and I guess based on this, this was an issue long ago as well. So he represents the single finger bouncing across all the strings from bass to treble. Most of us teachers need to correct that concept when we see students doing this as it will mess up the timing and clarity of the needed compas expressions. Marin distinguishes vaguely how the timing here should differ from the "flicked" rolls and accents later.
To be clear, however, he is not wanting you to do this as a "connected roll" just yet. His very misleading score representation of 3 fast arpeggios spread over two beats stoping on a single high E note on count 3, does not make sense when you see the "Gr" applications in context. He admits that for each rasgueado one would need a full score, and so he is going to simplify it. As each finger bounces over the strings you get 24 notes (6x4 fingers), and he explains he only wants to write 16th notes. So, even though he only wants 4 strokes per "movement", and he clarifies a three beat compás would have 3 movements, a 2/4 only two movements, etc., yet, in the pieces he represents a single movement by 4 32n notes "galloping" into the beats (mathematically wrong). This is the identical gallop to the Ocón description, except that Ocón does not specify how to gallop, or even that you might or might not do a connected roll. He leaves it open as "roll" that covers the beat and uses slash notation.
But simply put "Graneado" is a "brushing" gallop strum. (I teach iami, as this has become the standard). And I personally minimize the brushing affect, even though I don't want students loading the fingers or flicking them.
Next is the Rasgueado "seco", and unlike the "brushing" across the strings, he wants a fast strike across. SB is the full arm "bashing out" down strokes on a full chord. The 4-voice chord is the same idea but only with index finger, and it seems the return stroke occurs on the upbeats (perfectly analogous the Ocón description of the same use of index). So the voicing of the chord clues you in to the technique. Contextual examples are all very clear with this.
Chorlitazo, is apparently the flicked accented rasgueado. M finger seems preferred, but we know today we do this same thing with either finger. He will distinguish the same technique with index under "Golpe" where he wants this accent to involve the fleshy golpe done at the same time with m and a fingers. He represents this M accent by voicing only 3 notes of a chord, 5,4 and 3. This is due to the flicking thing, and today the only distinction is we rest pulgar on 6 when doing this. "Golpe" with index gets 4 strings, as it follows through I guess (clear in the illustration).
Rasgueado double (Gr-D) he wants the same brushing rasgueado with a return stroke. Unlike the seco return stroke with index, he wants you to do this with pulgar. Basically this is a 5-tuplet "abanico", that today is more common done as triplets by omitting pinky and m finger. The ridiculous arpeggio representation has double high E in the middle that represents the illustration of getting the thumb under the high E to do the up stroke. The first use of this is Soleares p. 144, and as I am saying, it is the typical ten messy strokes over counts 1 and 2 accenting count 3, then a seco up stroke with i. Pretty standard, except we use return stroke with i instead of with pulgar. He goes as far to equate the return stroke with P to a piano player dragging his thumb across the white keys.
Chorlitazo doble...So this is the loaded and flicked continuous roll with fingers. The issues with this one are numerous. First, he wants you to do this over the fingerboard, exactly as Devilhand once made fun of Sabicas for. Next, he does not describe a return stroke meaning he wants you to do the Jaun Serrano roll. Over the neck. And last, he represents this as 3 bass strings only (makes sense since you are flicking off the thumb), but with 6 tuplets??? It means if you start as he says with pinky you have a problem ending. Perhaps he means this is exactly like Juan Serrano (starting with index), then it makes sense as written, 3 repetitions ending on index. The second beat would start on ring finger. I have to wonder if he could even execute this (it is not in any contextual example). After this he claims this is all the known rasgueados. The last thing is the "arrastre" as we think of it today, done with pulgar nail. (Nuñez demonstrates this in Encuentro on Taranta).
I maybe missed some detail, but that is how it reads to me.
After looking at some of the pieces and listening to the early recordings (which came out about the same time), the graneado is a roll and the seco is an adornment.
The doble is the graneado, or begins like the graneado, with the thumb strokes added. The graneado and doble require separation of the sounds, by which he means that you can hear the strums, while the seco is played with "a dead hand," and the strings are heard simultaneously. The difference is a matter of the speed of attack. With graneado and doble each sound is heard while with the seco x-a-m-i are so close to each other that they sound simultaneous. That is what he means. That bears out in the Marin Soleares. Additionally, there instances where that seco is followed by the index up explicitly notated. The seco is the quick x-a-m-i (which your version cannot accommodate because in your version the first strum is an i-up: 1. i-A-M-I + --i 2. i-A-M-I) So what Ocon is notating is the seco with i up, and it gets very boring very quickly because he notates a large part of it that way.
The 1860 example is sencillo (seco only: x-a-m-i adornment to the downbeat) or doble (seco followed by i up). The other rasgueado is not covered by Marin. Thumb on the lower string(s), -x-a-m-i or i-m-a-x. They both use "doble" in different ways. Doble as two or more strums, and doble as graneado with p upstrum, then down.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
After looking at some of the pieces and listening to the early recordings (which came out about the same time), the graneado is a roll and the seco is an adornment.
I agree Graneado is a "roll" so long as we define "roll" to be, specifically, a "3-stroke roll". Those 3 strokes can manifest in various ways rhythmically (3+final stroke or 4 notes total) and we have to admit Marin's notation of them is atrocious and misleading as is. Compare his sevillanas on page 186 to 199... we could argue about the nuance there. The mental gymnastics required to decipher what he wants based on the illustrations, his text, notation examples, and finally contextual examples, is quite problematic. But let us say we agree it is a simple "roll".
Seco as an "adornment" is a problem for me unless you define "adornment". To me a grace note or flourish of notes is "an adornment" and that is NOT what is described by Marin there. What he described is basic compas strumming of a single chord hit, either by the whole hand, or the index finger alone. "Downstroke" in general is what it is, except he includes the upstroke with the index as part of this "seco" rasgueado "family". His notation clarifies which one he wants on a specific chord, the hand or the index only. I don't see how that is an "adornment" of a chord. It is basic sounding of a chord by strumming.
quote:
The doble is the graneado, or begins like the graneado, with the thumb strokes added. The graneado and doble require separation of the sounds, by which he means that you can hear the strums, while the seco is played with "a dead hand," and the strings are heard simultaneously. The difference is a matter of the speed of attack.
agreed, and only add he takes the description to a RIDICULOUS level by discussing the passing of a single finger over each string producing 6 notes, such that with the full 3-stroke Roll PLUS the final stroke on beat or whatever, you have 6x4 or 24 notes sounding...he claims. I as a teacher take huge issue with this, but hopefully we can agree that is in fact what he is describing. I call this "brushing" across the strings, and it is a beginner error IMO. But I think his goal here was to express a distinction between "brushing" and "flicking" rasgueados in the notation. I respect that he wanted to address this...even today we don't really have a way to notate that and need video to clarify. However, I fear his system is not really doing a great job at that. As I said, his connected roll using flicking is not in any musical example in the book (unless I missed it).
quote:
With graneado and doble each sound is heard while with the seco x-a-m-i are so close to each other that they sound simultaneous. That is what he means. That bears out in the Marin Soleares.
I hope you mean "each sound" as in "each individual finger stroke"? If so, I agree. I disagree with the Seco interpretation about each finger heard so close together, it is simply better to admit that a single chord is written with the wavy line and he means "strum it!", and either the entire hand is doing that (arbitrary which fingers are striking as you make ONE sound only), OR the index alone. He is quite clear about this. It is why the picture shows the 4 fingers rigid and connected as a single unit, ie. your "hand".
quote:
The seco is the quick x-a-m-i (which your version cannot accommodate because in your version the first strum is an i-up: 1. i-A-M-I + --i 2. i-A-M-I)
Absolutely false. First of all, as I said above, there is no separation in seco between finger strokes, it is ONE sound, as written, hence you can achieve the same with only index, with the caveat that you are not moving the arm so the chord voicing will only be 4 strings (he uses only the trebles plus 4th string in the score, and in contextual examples only three treble strings for upstrokes). SB is indicative of the whole arm driving the hand stroke across the strings. I don't even teach the SB to beginners because it is too damn loud. We do need it for baile, but all the other technique are better to start with.
And "my version" as you put is, has nothing to do with this...MY version (I don't like that because my version is ubiquitous by any serious flamenco guitarist in Spain) as applied to compas, is replacing the GRANEADO, which Marin is using for the typical things (Malagueña Sevillana etc., aka, the galloping strums), with only one finger different. The pinky is replaced by the index finger up. These are executed, or should be, LIKE the graneado in the sense it is a "brushing" rasguedo rather than a hard flicked attack. Hope this is Crystal clear now.
quote:
So what Ocon is notating is the seco with i up, and it gets very boring very quickly because he notates a large part of it that way.
Oh, absolutely not. The seco description is specific and clear. You don't describe "starting with meñique and ending with indice" with the seco thing, that makes ZERO sense. Otherwise why stick the single index stroke in there? Ocón is pointing out the index up is going along for the ride but on the UPBEAT...and yes this IS in fact what Marin wants with the seco index off beats as well. He does not use arrow like we do today, so (talk about boring) on-the-beat using 4 voice chords are index down, and up-beat 4 voice chords are index up...both "seco" in Marin's description. Again you don't do "seco" with individual fingers (until Marin describes the unused Chorlitazo doble over the fingerboard). So I hate to say you are not reading this correct.
What we see in the scores of Marin is examples (like Sevillanas) were you have two Graneado rolls (NOT connected or "doble") then a seco index up, and THAT is what Ocon is in fact describing, though he is not specific about it (which is good IMO), in the sense one could easily connect those rolls together based on timing execution. Marin is non-specific as well, but he wants to do a connected roll with thumb (rather than the more typical index up. I suspect he simply could not do it himself, being a "fakemenco" guy. ).
Last thing about Ocon being "boring" with his notation...um, he explicitly states they are only using the most "common" version to give an approximate idea, and there are other ways to do it. Basically leaving the drum-roll notation open to interpretation. The value of that method is enormous in my mind, vs Marin who demands these specific things to be done in the scores. But one is a 'transcription" of open ended formal structure (Ocon) the other is a learning method. This is no small distinction in my mind.
quote:
The 1860 example is sencillo (seco only: x-a-m-i adornment to the downbeat) or doble (seco followed by i up). The other rasgueado is not covered by Marin. Thumb on the lower string(s), -x-a-m-i or i-m-a-x. They both use "doble" in different ways. Doble as two or more strums, and doble as graneado with p upstrum, then down.
Still don't know WHAT that source is. I guess you are keeping it a secret?
It is great you have variety at this time period because it is EXACTLY what Ocón insinuated. There are other methods, and you can simply insert these into his score where there is slash notation. It is quite simple. Perhaps if you could collate sources and variations of ragueado we can begin to discern some evolution. Ocón would have been observing pros in the cafe vs street amatures or classical guitarists tip toeing into the genre. If you won't admit "flamenco" as genre with pros, then fine, "folk art professionals".
Finally about "doble", in both Marin and your mystery 1860 source, they seem to be referring to the same thing, ie, connected rolls. Cinco dedos involving the thumb, I feel is the same concept as Marin, where you are making continuous quintuplets per beat, with P up strokes instead of the index up as we do it today. Personally, I am on the fence that this (essentially abanico with 5 strokes instead of 3) predates the normal because as I have said many times now, the triple roll plus index down up can be smoothed out from a gallop into a continuous roll IMO. So I feel it would have been "discovered" first. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and that this why the gallop is replacing pinky with index up....because developing the upstroke to make a connected roll is more recent? We won't now for sure until more evidence appears.
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
I hope you mean "each sound" as in "each individual finger stroke"? If so, I agree. I disagree with the Seco interpretation about each finger heard so close together, it is simply better to admit that a single chord is written with the wavy line and he means "strum it!", and either the entire hand is doing that (arbitrary which fingers are striking as you make ONE sound only), OR the index alone. He is quite clear about this. It is why the picture shows the 4 fingers rigid and connected as a single unit, ie. your "hand".
After looking at the Granaina, you were correct and that is what is meant by sencillo or doble. The sencillo is the "role, or what you teach as i-A-M-I (miniscule for upstroke, mayuscule for downstroke). In the granaina, he also notates it as a 32nd note "adornment" when it should actually be a triplet with I landing on the beat.
And that takes us into another set of issues with the Graneado doble and all of them really. If we assume the doble lands on the beat then the mechanisms with repeats are oddly numbered. So, either it was a feeling to get you to the third beat, or he did not give enough direction on what the final stroke should be. All he says are vague hints like (there are three movements....well, three movements of X-A-M-I gives you 11 notes plus a final. How is that supposed to get divided. Same with X-A-M-I-p...you end up with 13 notes and a final p upstroke. So none of them are really, exactly what we use today with the exception of the seco and chorlitazo. And the chorlitazo seems to be much more used that the seco in most contexts (imo). Anyway... Vicente's i-X-A-M-I i-X-A-M-I- i-X-A-M-I- i -I is a great example of adding an upstroke at the beggining and end of the otherwise symmetrical pattern to get a 32nd not rajeo that still lands with an I accent down.
I now take graneado to be the adornment (it is an adornment in my opinion because it is embellishing the beat, otherwise, just use seco). The doble is not a quintuplet. See below.
Marin is not at all clear about what the final stroke would be.
As for the seco, I had posted and then edited an anecdote about an A-M-I or A-M down strum from a couple of the guitarists who were first generation California/Americans to go to Moron/Sevilla. One of them used A/M for bulerias where most people would use chorlitazo with I or M. That A-M is not used so much anymore, at least not in the way it used to be, like the seco with i up.
And that still leaves a problem with Ocon. Assume you are correct about the seco. That seems to be what Ocon notates throughout. Why would he not throw some graneado or grtaneado doble in there? (This is rhetorical, you answered above...I find both just as interesting for different reasons). Not sure, but although we might recognize something from around 1880, I think it was still evolving up into the early twentieth century. Especially with regard to odd and descuadrao compases. The Marin has them. And, Castro Buendia calls notating the Solea beginning on 1 "academic." In my opinion, any way of notating it is academic. It is a schooled way of notating sound in graphic symbols. That said, The early recordings sure do emphasize the ternary compas beginning on what we think of as 12 much more that they do now. Often after a llamada that begins on 1, but you can really hear the 12-3. It sound very often like the jaleo it is said had an influence on it, or more like bulerias. Anyway, that's a different discussion.
As for Graneado doble:
quote:
Finally about "doble", in both Marin and your mystery 1860 source, they seem to be referring to the same thing, ie, connected rolls. Cinco dedos involving the thumb, I feel is the same concept as Marin, where you are making continuous quintuplets per beat, with P up strokes instead of the index up as we do it today. Personally, I am on the fence that this (essentially abanico with 5 strokes instead of 3) predates the normal because as I have said many times now, the triple roll plus index down up can be smoothed out from a gallop into a continuous roll IMO. So I feel it would have been "discovered" first. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and that this why the gallop is replacing pinky with index up....because developing the upstroke to make a connected roll is more recent? We won't now for sure until more evidence appears.
Absolutely False! (Can we not go there....this is a process?) X-A-M-I- p-X-A-M I gives two beats of sixteenth notes, what we'd play today as A-M-I-i A-M-I-i -I. That interpretation does not require the quintuplet and solves the problem of the final stroke. Thinking with the present to understand the past puts some blinders on.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
After looking at the Granaina, you were correct and that is what is meant by sencillo or doble.
Excellent. And I agree, triplet landing on the beat is the best way to notate, however the timing can work out in different ways. For example I suspect Marin's two versions of Sevillanas compas (p. 186 v. 199) suggest the former to do a "slower" roll timing wise, and the later uses a space and a much faster gallop triplet. Probably they are in this sequence as per students going "slower" vs more advance "faster" tempo with the strokes themselves. But who knows, it is very vague.
quote:
All he says are vague hints like (there are three movements....well, three movements of X-A-M-I gives you 11 notes plus a final. How is that supposed to get divided. Same with X-A-M-I-p...you end up with 13 notes and a final p upstroke. So none of them are really, exactly what we use today with the exception of the seco and chorlitazo.
agreed. And I realize my huge error earlier about "5-tuplets" which I will address next as it ties in to what he might have meant with his notation.
quote:
Absolutely False! (Can we not go there....this is a process?) X-A-M-I- p-X-A-M I gives two beats of sixteenth notes, what we'd play today as A-M-I-i A-M-I-i -I.
OOOOPS! You are correct here. In my mind as I was playing those things I was reverting to the typical quintuplets as they relate to the basic roll adding the "seco index" up stroke. But my mistake now makes me realize the "three movements" are this.
1.Fingers down (could be a messy group of 4 16ths, as they are "brushing" over the strings) 2. Thumb up.. and only this. Most likely this messy placement of his double high E string note lost in a flurry of 32nd notes is what we today do very specifically on count 2. In some case this is so important to express the second beat that we might start with fingers on the contra Tiempo in the down direction as a grace note into that next Thumb up stroke on beat. In fact most modern abanicos are done this way. 3. repeat the first movement of fingers down. They would be off beat, but Marin is writing these as if they start on beat 2 which makes no sense.
We would expect this connected roll to land on the 3rd beat with the last stroke which would be index down. So my brain added, (incorrectly as you pointed out) two P strokes for 5+5 ending upward. You are absolutely correct he wants a connected roll that can only add up to 4+4. This is exactly the pattern I use to teach a connected roll with index up as well (instead of amii amii, I teach this phrase, and use it myself often, cami,icam, i). So it is this phrase Marin wants but with P up to connect instead of index up.
quote:
And that still leaves a problem with Ocon. Assume you are correct about the seco. That seems to be what Ocon notates throughout. Why would he not throw some graneado or grtaneado doble in there? (This is rhetorical, you answered above...I find both just as interesting for different reasons)
Ocon gives the description of Graneado NOT SECO. Use the nails, start with pinky end with index. That is not seco. Only "using the flesh" upward with index is the seco thing. Normal stemmed chords (with no slash) are seco strokes as well. Otherwise what, you "pluck" those? Marin confusingly uses the wavy line for seco and bizarro arpeggio for graneado. Your other mystery guy of 1860 uses wavy line for graneado. Ocon uses drum roll slash. It makes ZERO sense to use drum slash notation if all he wanted was a single stroke of the hand downward (even if index upward follows, it makes no sense). In ALL THREE cases, it is non-specific how the "roll" manifests timing wise, other than they are expressions, (or adornments as you say) of rhythmic pulses.
So, as I said Ocon is more concerned with the musical form, this collection is NOT a method for learning guitar playing. He clearly leaves us with "this is just one way to do it", and the notation is leaving it "open to interpretation". However, if we examine a bit closer we see two interesting chord strums in the Soledad, at the very first two measures and very last two (I believe these are meant to overlap at the DC like a wrap-around to repeat the form, and this would fix a compas issue as well, so it is an editorial thing I feel happened later). On the E chord we see two 16th gallops the first time, and then at the end of the score the same type of expression as triplet 16ths. While they are not specific (I would use my whole hand for both of these, but the triplets end upward) he could have heard this sound and knew that it was done with fingers or abanico or whatever, but it would be too involved to address this in the text. In fact it goes together (no matter how it was expressed) with exactly the thing he was saying at the Fandango Rasguedo text (we give you an "approximate idea", he says).
We continue to disagree on early audio recordings and compas expression. Yes there could be "evolution", and there could also be just different ways people did things, audio is the tip of the iceberg. Like I admit things like the chords for Mellizo Malagueña, Cartagenera of Rojo, Levantica, etc., have moved away from strict Fandango copla to better harmonize with the melody, and Ricardo and Melchor inspired adherence to strict modules of 12 for Solea unlike Montoya's generation, and a big etc.
About academic writing of the compas, this ties in to "do gypsies count?" and other big issues for another time/discussion. The simple answer is the Ocon demonstrates (he shifts the counts of Solea, but not Fandango, and Sevillanas is "weird") that the conceptual issue of meter expression on paper has been going on for over a hundred years, and will continue. I myself have tried to express things as I envision them in the mel bay series, and as I explained earlier, I was forced to compromise with siguiriyas. Simply put, I understand the need to notate a buleria AS IF it were a solea (with fast tempo), but in practice don't even do that myself. It is actually one of the beautiful intellectual things about flamenco and why ignoring scores all together can be "cool" when learning flamenco. In other words this complex and funny issue of how to best write a simple basic thing can be an argument, IS THE REASON the culture has been generally against its use.
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
we could probably spend many more years arguing about Ocon and Marin, etc., but perhaps something constructive I came across, in case you have not looked through this yet. Briceño, perhaps overlooked being in France (Castro Buendía only honorably mentions this material in regards to Zarabanda and a couple other classical dance forms and poems), but dang this material hits me as "super Spanish", as in related to Spanish folk, and ultimately "flamenco" despite its age (1626 pre Gaspar Sanz). In fact seeing this has inspired me to perhaps look at those other foreign guys messing with Spanish guitar (Foscorini as you have pointed out, and most intriguing to me is Corbetta historically). My dad had the Corbetta and I ignored it, will have to revisit at some point.
Meanwhile this thing does NOT have melody (cante) or Phrygian harmony that I can discern, and we don't know his ragueado technique (perhaps someday your investigation will allow some inference here), but the LETRAS are super interesting. For example I see Romances and such that relate to cante, and the seguidilla appears to connect our Serrana/Cielito Linda type 5+7 poetic meter and letra types in a concrete way. (Morena with heavenly dark eyes, etc.). The tablature key and tuning is "normal" guitar stuff, ie., High string is in fact the treble E note (he is not giving absolute pitch, letters are frets only). A couple chords are not clear like "4 vs A" looks like two "4s" to me, might be typographical error, and the cross and the repeated numbers etc., but once you get it, the chord charts are easy to read.
points of interest: P. 11v, hemiola, ie, the Mexican tanguillo type rhythm (again, I feel clues to technique might be preserved by indigenous communities). P. 12v guardame las vacas bridges our Vihuela rep. to the baroque guitar stuff (a huge gap otherwise). P. 13v, the letra describes the moorish dance with vihuela. P. 14r might explain Sanz French zarabanda "anacrusis", as he explains at the bottom there is a note missing before the pattern starts (a pick up, like we do for Fandango/sevillana). In otherwords, it's not "French" but a spaniard IN FRANCE that plays this pattern. P. 22r This is the seguidilla that is similar to flamenco Serrana letra, and Cielito Lindo in Mexico.
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
we could probably spend many more years arguing about Ocon and Marin, etc., but perhaps something constructive I came across, in case you have not looked through this yet. Briceño, perhaps overlooked being in France (Castro Buendía only honorably mentions this material in regards to Zarabanda and a couple other classical dance forms and poems), but dang this material hits me as "super Spanish", as in related to Spanish folk, and ultimately "flamenco" despite its age (1626 pre Gaspar Sanz). In fact seeing this has inspired me to perhaps look at those other foreign guys messing with Spanish guitar (Foscorini as you have pointed out, and most intriguing to me is Corbetta historically). My dad had the Corbetta and I ignored it, will have to revisit at some point.
I'll try to get to this post later today. I just wanted to point out that Spain occupied Naples for quite a long time. The "Italians" imported the chitarra Espagnola and many of the dance forms. In University music history classes the canon is Austro-German composers, then Italian and French. With the exception of Handel, Britain does not get much love. And Spain gets a footnote with Scarlatti, Albeniz and Granados. In this context the Italian Camerata is given credit for discovering the "new" homophonic way of accompanying to bring out the text, and therefore, by association, chordal harmony. One of the early arguments I was trying to make was that Spain had discovered chords by 1596 (1586 if one accepts that Amat was a prodigy....generally accepted as 1596). Not only did they discover chords (you pointed out one earlier source, I forget his name but he was Italian), but they either kept the phrygian system alive or they rediscovered it.
Sanz studied in Italy i am pretty sure and gives props to Foscarini. (I sure wish the HIP guys would bring back CDs. I learned so much about flamenco from liner notes...they point you in the right direction. I would like to know when a Baroque piece is HI.).
I will check out these too.
quote:
About academic writing of the compas, this ties in to "do gypsies count?" and other big issues for another time/discussion. The simple answer is the Ocon demonstrates (he shifts the counts of Solea, but not Fandango, and Sevillanas is "weird") that the conceptual issue of meter expression on paper has been going on for over a hundred years, and will continue. I myself have tried to express things as I envision them in the mel bay series, and as I explained earlier, I was forced to compromise with siguiriyas. Simply put, I understand the need to notate a buleria AS IF it were a solea (with fast tempo), but in practice don't even do that myself. It is actually one of the beautiful intellectual things about flamenco and why ignoring scores all together can be "cool" when learning flamenco. In other words this complex and funny issue of how to best write a simple basic thing can be an argument, IS THE REASON the culture has been generally against its use.
It also ties into the seguiriya conversation. I learned from two masters and also taught/teach. I use a combo of methods with face to face, note by note, prevailing. But some people like material in Juan Martin, or Encuentro, or Worms, or any number of other materials. If they know how to read, I tell them to play when they are ready and we can put it in the context of compas with palmas or a recording of compas (as well as teaching them palmas so that they have that).
There really is no argument. One can learn to read it one way or another, and with experience will understand the multiple ways it is written. For me, I have not seen a bad way, only bad for beginners. I have my preferred way, but others have theirs. When I say it is all academic, I mean, writing music is academic, so if you learn that, it does not matter if you are gitano or venutian, it is going to be your interpretation from a system you learned/appropriated, even if your way happens to be the best. There is often more variation in a population (biological or cultural) than there is across them. So, there would probably be arguments within the flamenco community as well. Hell, people still argue about the Tarantos compas and how to tag the ayeos for Cana, with a cierre or with one beat!
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
I think what you said about the expulsion of the Jews and the presence of Arabic culture before and during the time of Convivencia is where the origins of what would become flamenco were mixed together. All the ports of call along the Spanish coast received strangers and cultures melted together. Look at the way Sephardic poetry flourished in Spain during the time of the Arab occupation and how that came to be passed down the music of the late middle ages troubador songs.
I think to speculate on the origins and try to pin it down is folly. It is lost to the deeps of time for a reason. The further back in Spanish writing you look the more you see flamenco. It was just bred from the soil of that land and cultivated by all the cultures that lived there, but least by the Christians...
Absolutely on the mark, Stephen! The Moorish and Sephardic Jewish influence is clearly evident in both cante and in the Andalusian Cadence of the guitar, not least in the Arabic quarter-tones one can make out in much of it. Less so the Gypsy influence and, as you point out, least by the Christians. In my humble opinion, the Gypsy influence is vastly overplayed among many, including the Gitanos themselves. They may have appropriated flamenco as their own, but the influence of the Moors and the Sephardic Jews overshadows that of the Gypsies.
Cheers,
Bill
Hi Bill,
Interesting turn around I have on this thread. Several years have gone by and through talking to Ricardo I’ve learned the ‘Andalusian cadence’ isn’t from Andalusia, but from northern lowlands music of the renaissance and was isolated later as a feature of how cante works either guitar accompaniment!
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Romerito)
quote:
One of the early arguments I was trying to make was that Spain had discovered chords by 1596 (1586 if one accepts that Amat was a prodigy....generally accepted as 1596). Not only did they discover chords (you pointed out one earlier source, I forget his name but he was Italian), but they either kept the phrygian system alive or they rediscovered it.
I am in agreement with your entire post. Here there is some nuance. In Amat you showed me, he justifies the "chord system" he presents with a three voice setting. In other words a little polyphonic motet (not a simple melody with chords on top or monody) and matches his chord chart key by numbers to the points in the setting (printer screwed up the alignment but still) that align with the chord voicings. Considering three voices alone don't add up to 5-note chords, he was admitting one would be "adding voices" in effect, vs. the older concept of intabulation of vocal music literally (vertical sonorities arise).
I get that there is a conceptual dividing line here....there will be "voice leading violations" that occur with using chords vs. adhering to a vocal setting (parallel octaves and 5ths mainly). However the concept arrived at was already on the table for a very long time. One thing that occurs with intabulation (at least I see it in Fuenllana often) is a sustained vowel is not always possible, so when a new voice comes in, a note is plucked again so you can hear the two voices together. That right there is already "wrong" or not literal transportation of polyphony, however it produces a new "vertical sonority" via the instrument itself. Then you can consider very old vocal settings like falsobordon where they sing one note repeatedly with a bunch of text, and like only one voice is moving. On a lute or vihuela that is like bashing out a single chord (I know that they still pluck these but the concept is already encoded on the fingerboard).
Here is a good example (1554) where the idea of simplifying these voices to a "chord system" follows from simple logic. The question only becomes about the importance of the voice leading rules that get violated by Amat's suggestion.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
Hi Bill,
Interesting turn around I have on this thread. Several years have gone by and through talking to Ricardo I’ve learned the ‘Andalusian cadence’ isn’t from Andalusia, but from northern lowlands music of the renaissance and was isolated later as a feature of how cante works either guitar accompaniment!
I too have come a long way since that first page of comments...learned tons thanks to you guys pointing me in certain directions. The Andalusian Cadence deserves a bit of explanation because of nuance. Since you turned me on to Bermudo I will point out his example. There is a lot geographic concepts, but ultimately these musical issues are "human", as in better examined by the individuals involved (for me anyway it is better). So Bermudo mentions the "foreign" style, in a manner that it is known as prestigious, and lists some of the "Netherlands" composers (Josquin, Gombert, aka "flemish" guys), and lumps in with them his Andalusian amigo C. Morales. Basically admitting the "light of Spain", or the best composer in Spain, as having learned and mastered this "Franco-flemish" thing in addition to what might differentiate the Italians/French, etc., masters. Felipe Pedrell recognized Morales and felt a need to "rescue" or "steal him" away from the general consensus of Renaissance musicologists (including Bermudo!), that he WAS great, however, copying his flemish predecessors very exactly (a rip off of Josquin, Richafort, etc.). Pedrell wanted to claim him as a stand alone master representative of Spain, and Andalucia specifically.
After getting exposed via Fuenllana tabs and looking deeper, I tend to agree the guy is actually unique, and (perhaps due to my own flamenco sensibilities or modern influences) vastly superior to his peers in the era, and frankly, his predecessors. I feel a deep connection with this guy, and now consider him the first "Andalusian Flamenco" artist. Well, to be clear, "flamenco" is the term used for Dutch Speaking people from Flanders, and from the same areas the French speaking Belgian folks were called "Valones", so "flemish" or Walloons" back then. But using "flemish" as a musical style thing, "flamenco" works for me, and I do feel the answer to the mystery word lies in understanding the adjective usage of the word for the art/style, and possible "geographic origins"/connections to Spain in 16th century, as opposed to a misunderstood synonymous term for "gypsy".
So there is already, for me, a "Spanish flamenco" concept due to the tastes of these musicians during this era. But this flemish vocal music sounds nothing like our modern Spanish flamenco, so what is the actual relationship? Bermudo discusses the modes and gives two great musical examples in PHRYGIAN in his treatise:1. a vihuela setting of a romance for 6 or 7 string instruments (tuning is crazy on the 7 string), and 2. a three part vocal motet with no text. The "Motet" is the musical form most representative of Franco-flemish polyphony, and as Romerito says often in this thread, these horizontal melodies don't produce "chords"...and he wants us to hold off from using the term until Amat 1596. So where did the idea come from? I labled this motet with the "Andalusian Cadence" as a melodic descending scale in blue (A-G-F-E). Bermudo has drawn in VERTICAL LINES in order to start us thinking about vertical harmonic structure (50 years before Amat gives us simple chords to substitute in a similar setting). Please note the spots were the G note has a C in the bass (much like Soleá escobillas). One big isolated spot is the cadential Dm "triad". Moving F to E as chords is like when a vulgar family member tells you some nasty story and you cringe. This is because of the parallel 5ths and octaves issue. It is like "low class" or something. If you just sneak in a D note in place of the C, at the right moment, it is like the "politically correct" way to do it. I know it sounds trivial, but this detail is a huge part of why I think scholars have missed the musical connection. So notice the last measure the bass is doing F-E-F-E, and by staggering the voices timing wise, that C-B thing is avoided, and a Politically polite and correct E phrygian sound is resolved. In this example the third is avoided, but as we can see often, Picardy third acounts for the G# with no need for Arabic influences.
So the Spaniards seem to have this preferred taste for Phrygian, but why? We need look no further than the influential parody Mass of Josquin de Prez written before 1500, published often since 1502, based on "fascia fare mi" set to notes (sogetto cavato) La-Sol-Fa-Re-Mi. A-G-F-(D)-E. And remember what I said about D sneaking in to save the F-E cadence. It is like a perfect little theme that Josquin transports around, between voices, getting through all the movements of the mass. And the Spaniards extracted bits and pieces of these musical devices (as they saw fit) to make like "falsetas" that teach and emphasize this technique and sound. Below you can track the "la-sol-fa-re-mi", as "F#-E-D-B-C#" in RED (Fuenllana used color to track the printed text for a certain vocal line). This is literally like Rondeña, key and tuning (if you add "2" to any 6th string notes it is literal). Gloria up top, Kyrie underneath:
So this is our "flemish", or flamenco cadences encoded on the fingerboard via voice-leading intabulation. (I point out Fuenllana also uses Montoya's drop D with this standard lute tuning in other settings). Notice D major (F#), A/C#(E) Bm (both D and B notes), and the C# final with picardy third is a typical modern barre voicing, even if we tune normal! And this is the tip of a huge iceberg in the repertoire.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
To add to this just a bit, we know modern flamenco guitar is mostly por Arriba (E, or literally the "mi mode") and por medio (La or A phrygian), and the rest of the tonalities for guitar seem "exotic" by comparison. So seeing this "C# phrygian in Rondeña tuning", almost literal thing existing back then as the basis of the "mi mode" or natural phrygian mode, with ficta notes just filling in all the colorful pieces of the puzzle (on the fingerboard at least), I wondered about the other tonalities. Well in the very next movment of this mass by Josquin, (moving from Kyrie Elaison to Christe elaison), he transports the theme down a 5th (a standard technique with this flemish polyphony called "cantus firmus" where you transport set melodies), which forces a modulation to F# Phrygian (B-A-G-Em-F#). This simple alteration of G# to G in the bass line shows us the relation from Rondeña to "toque Levante" or "Taranta" tonality. Keep in mind, in 1853 the very first printed use of the term "musica Flamenca", they say in the newspaper "we are NOT talking about Josquin...but the music of Andalucia.". Maybe all the error of understanding the WORD, begins right there:
Circling back to earlier when I pointed out to Romerito the Pedro Guerrero Sonette (also in Fuenllana) proved the "court music" of the renaissance did not shy away from the augmented 2nd (singing F-G#, similar to Arabic hijaz). Well the same piece concludes with the Andalusian cadence transposed to B phrygian, aka, "Granaina/Murciana", which we see used in the 19th century (Both Ocón and Julian Arcas have examples that relate to modern flamenco granaina toque). While the first part I am showing the chords (Em-Bm/Gmaj-Cmaj7#11(!), the A sneaks in as Am/C, end on B major), the second part ends with descending related melody in RED:E-D-D-(E)-C-B. The final cadence is really the first measure of the bottom line, and the voice holds out the B note till the end (much like cantores that hold tonic as the guitar cadences under it, but here repeating "lagrimas..." on one note). I point out in blue the parallel 5ths movement (B/F#-C/G), so a relaxation already of voice leading rules....but I think the red "A" note (my blue circle should have a "3") fixes that issue, and the red ink ran or was smeared over time I guess. Even though the final cadence is "plagal" (Em-Bmajor over and over), you see that bass line walk up from F# to B on the last chord, similar to our modern "glissando" on the low string when we conclude the cante of Granaina:
And here below, we see a fauxbordon of the Brother of Pedro Guerrero (Francisco, student of Morales mentioned earlier, and close colleague of Mudarra, and no doubt Bermudo), transposed to G phrygian (remember our capo 3 for vihuelas), which means, it looks like good old por arriba. RED melody is A-B-B, then A-G-F-E, a very solea escobilla type structure is realized here under that descending melody (chords F-C-Dm add 9-E) and the open voice chord with the F-E final resolve is yet another "coincidence" in the repertoire that perfectly matches our traditional material (toque por arriba phrases).
And so that covers like all our traditional Flamenco "phrygian" keys for guitar basically, Rondeña, Taranta, Granaina, por Arriba, and the Mudarra Tientos has the por medio thing I explained earlier:
Just wanted to make clear all the above is regarding our "toque", or guitar chord/key concept for use with accompanying cante. The actual cante melodies are a separate issue, which I feel pretty strongly/confidently are "less coincidental" even, than the above vihuela/guitar correlations, but also seem to originate in this same period/music culture. Not ready to reveal sources until I have done more research.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 15725
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Moving F to E as chords is like when a vulgar family member tells you some nasty story and you cringe. This is because of the parallel 5ths and octaves issue. It is like "low class" or something. If you just sneak in a D note in place of the C, at the right moment, it is like the "politically correct" way to do it. I know it sounds trivial, but this detail is a huge part of why I think scholars have missed the musical connection.
Probably I am just talking aloud with this this stuff, but incase anyone was following, here is a great example of the "politically correct" cadence of the renaissance vs the vulgar version. Manolo uses more the typical voicing for the tonic chord C# in Rondeña tuning, as Montoya did (and we see in vihuela often). At 4:43 he sneaks in the open string B note before resolving to C#. That sound really stands out to me now, and is the PC version of the cadence:
All other occurrences of the resolution are either straight from D major to C#, or D7. The D7 has a C natural, which is better thought of as B#....so basically the B is altered as a leading tone to C#, and this becomes acceptable much later after the Baroque, but is in Western theory called "augmented 6th". It is very odd to me that western theory people don't see this connection (aug.6 is borrowed or evolves from the old Phrygian cadences of the Renaissance).
Printable Version
He admits it is one most popular way and there are others, so it is an approximate idea of the concept. Consider this dude is not a guitar player, he does a better job at explaining the thing than actual players, which is pretty amazing to me. I personally think that the transcription by Murciano's piano playing son expresses what we would do today as rasgueado, as those ridiculous ascending arpeggios. At least Ocón recognized the function as grace note rolls...which is what they are. 
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