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.
I know this is a sore subject with you guys, but I am asking for the purpose of my research paper. Define flamenco puro and list some professional artists that do and do not fall into that category. I am just interested in opinions, I am not trying to start anything negative. I am already aware of how most people feel about Gypsy Kings, Otmar Leibert, and Juan Martin. I am interested in hearing about other artists. Thanks guys!
...... now where is that "ban this guy" icon again? Umm....
Elvis is not flamenco puro - for a start. Then again, he was really very flamenco. Gypsy Kings got a lot of us headed this way - Rumba Catalan is catchy!
apparently this is one question that is not going to get a definitive answer. sorry if I offended anyone by asking. like I said, I am not trying to cause any trouble.
IMO, "Flamenco Puro" just means traditional Flamenco with nothing added and nothing taken away. No saxophones, no out-of-compas parts, and very probably inclusive of some raw cante and/or baile. The word "traditional" is open to interpretation, though and its something I cannot answer definitively.
Jb
_____________________________
¡Si esto no está en compas, esto no es el Flamenco!
Find flamenco records that has Puro or Pureza in the title and there is a big chance it actually contains that as well, at least in the definition of those who made the record.
dont know for sure but i am willing to bet Paco and Camaron werent considered puro in the 70s.
seems to me like the "flamenco puro" is just something used to degrade those they dont yet understand or are threatened by, its a natural human behaviour be scared of or dismiss what u dont understand, beeing a country of hot blodded opinionated "Macho" europeans that mulitplies to times 10
All my Spanish friends here, its very very rare when they say "i dont know" all my friends that have only heard flamenco from me become flamenco experts after 3 beers, they not narow minded they just very very confident (macho)
its why i think its important to have your own brain and take all the imformation but its up to you to just use only what makes sence to you.
It is interesting, that there are people who criticise that something is not puro, because they feel threatened. But then there are people who disdain 'puro' because the feel threatened by an established 'authority' who might not accept them.
To me, flamenco puro is the flamenco that stays closest to its roots. While it's true that there was a Moorish influence and even some origens as far back as India, but Flamenco was born in Andalucia by a joining of cultures and this new culture has not changed all that much in close to 500 years. Keeping flamenco separate from the other Spanish folk musics (e.g. Sevillanas) and maintaining a distinction between the 'puro' and the imported palos.
Flamenco guitar has only been around about 100 years, so it is not exactly puro, especially solo guitar. But I can understand how people would want to stay true to the ethno-cultural history of flamenco.
I think "Flamenco Puro" is more of a concept than a reality myself. But something that is very, very important to Flamenco IMO. It's reaching back to the days when Flamenco was "unadulterated" but just raw basic chords and singing. The basic chords that Flamenco springs from.
It's the same in "modern" Blues... Some of the great electric players will be at a concert playing their greatest licks..then suddenly, when the "duende" descends upon them, start playing some basic "down home" licks from the earliest Delta Blues... And the crowd erupts!!! Why is that? My explanation is that it is every bit of a musical statement as anything mind-blowingly technical. And in the end, it's Music.. and the moving of emotions is what it's all about.
Sure..you wouldn't hold that crowd playing that stuff all night. You've got to move with the times. But a little taste of it reminds everybody (who is into it) where it all came from.
In 100 years time when we are all pushing the daisies, people will still be listening to Terremoto and Manuel Morao and getting inspiration from it. IMO.
Nothing at all to do with Modern v Trad or Vincente v Diego del Gastor etc.
That's just misinformation and rubbish IMO.
cheers
Ron
_____________________________
A good guitar might be a good guitar But it takes a woman to break your heart
To me "puro" is the flamenco which makes me connect with the real emotions of the palo's. Tarantas which originated from the leadminers ( sorry for me english). soleares from the isolation of the gypsies. the "lets encourage each other" happines from buleria and alegria. It all brings tears to my eyes. Especially when there's cante involved.
I don't get connected when I hear a soleares sounding like two nice blond ladies having a good time on a cafe terrace on a sunny afternoon. (read >>more minor 7 chords )
Sorry I listened to this old LP from "gitanillos de Cadiz" this afternoon. It's all so simple and basic. But it cuts through my soul. There's a track on it "nanas". It's only cante, no guitar. Man, it grabs you and you can't stand to listen to some virtuoso picado riff afterwards.
I really dislike these expressions. If something is puro, it means that there´s something which is sucio (dirty) or at least non - puro.
These kind of expressions we´ve had through the whole history of mankind and on all levels, and they they have only been used to create distance between people of a different political observation, origin, race, likings etc. You name it.
I´m no way going to say what is puro and what is not. In my opinion flamenco has fusioned right from the start hundreds of years ago. It actually started as a fusion and its one of its beautys, that there is room for a bit of everything.
I don't get connected when I hear a soleares sounding like two nice blond ladies having a good time on a cafe terrace on a sunny afternoon. (read >>more minor 7 chords )
I completely agree.... (good picture ) but I also accept that this fact is just because of my taste.
Almost all definitions of 'puro' all boil down to the single concept of keeping Flamenco true to its origins.
Yes, the other side of this double-edged blade is that there is a 'sucio' or that there are impuridades. And there will be discrimination against payos &c, and there will be an avante garde that says "to Hell with the puristas!" One could argue that all attempts to preserve (ethnic) culture(s) will eventually smack of bias and xenophobia - if a phenomenon is like a bucket of white paint, how many droplets of other coloured paints can we mix in before the paint is no long white, but blue or green or orange? (Do not confuse this analogy with a racial or colour-based argument.)
But without a position that attempts to anchor Flamenco to its roots, how long until 'globalised' flamenco becomes something that resembles true flamenco in nothing but the basics of technique?
Pretty much all of you will agree that Cooke and Liebert are not flamenco. Some will argue further that the Gypsy Kings are not either.
If not for the concept of flamenco puro, many of you may be content to be the next Ottmar or Jesse.
You all know that to gain respect within the flamenco community as an artist you will have to be flamenco enough. And even if you despise the idea of 'puro' you will know when something is or isn't 'flamenco'.
While the idea of pureza can head you down a slippery slope of bias and intolerance and will likely never find a universally accepted definition, you must have a clear ideal of what flamenco is. I hope that, whatever your definition of 'puro' is, that your dedication to your flamenco ideal earns you praises of being "muy flamenco!"
The folk who live in Spain may be able to clear this up.. On Ondajerez TV, I've listened to some interviews, where an artist or aficionado has been commenting on another artist's latest CD or whatever and heard the term "puro" being used quite loosely...like "Me gusta mucho su Solea...su toque..la sonida...muy puro.. muy antiguo.." There was no big deal about the term or anything. My Spanish isn't very good, so I can just follow the gist of these things, but to my mind it was just another word to say "great...very Flamenco". Maybe we have more of a problem with the word than the Flamencos do?
cheers
Ron
_____________________________
A good guitar might be a good guitar But it takes a woman to break your heart
Yes, my view of the use of puro is like saying "very good" and "very flamenco" out of a traditional view of what flamenco is about.
Thats another thing the flamencos i respect tend to think about old things as things of value not as old and useless. And that include a lot of people who themselves play very modern.
I don't see why the debate of Puro v Fusion/Modern get's so heated. Actually I do. Fo some, it's about their culture, for others flamenco is the focus of their passions. To potential feel robbed or excluded is always there. And there is always the need for some to feel elite, or to criticisem because that's what they do best.
I think that to play flamenco you should pay your dues to the traditional or puro before you can take licenses with the art. There's nothing wrong with fusion, IMO, as long as you represent it as such and treat culturally related stuff with respect.
If you look at vicente amigo, tomatito or josele they do things that they themselves doesnt consider flamenco, but play out of curiosity, personal expression or wanting to develop and communicate with other genres of music.
Jazz, rock and classical musicians sometimes play flamenco and flamenco musicians sometimes play classical, jazz or rock, i dont see any problem there.
A guitarist could be able to play things that could be considered very "puro" by some people but at the same time have an ability to play other types of music, that moves them or they find interesting.
But just as paco doesnt becomes a classical guitarist just because he plays rodrigo or de falla - a classical, rock or jazzguitarist doesnt become a flamencoguitarist just because they play paco.
Every music has different requirements, traditions and formative rules and "pureza" as a compliment usually, with a few exceptions, is reserved for artists that are born into it, gypsy or not.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread