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.
|
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Exitao
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
|
 RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
Who are you using as a devil's advocate?
Well, I have no side. I'm just stirring the pot, gently, to keep this going because I learn from it. When I feel informed enough to have my own hardcore position, I'll be able to credit the people from the foro for starting me down my path.
Well, getting back to matriarchy &c, I have to say I've never understood the Latin obsessions with mothers. Having been raised w/o one I have a lack of perspective. I always assumed it was because Latinos are all mimao.
Je je je je.
Judaism is not to blame for misogyny. While Christianity is founded on the precepts of Judaism, you have to understand that it was co-opted by the Romans, who were extremely patriarchal. (Incidentally, in Hebrew, God is neither male nor female and the Olde Testment both male and female qualities are attributed to God. But once the scriptures were translated into Greek and Latin, God became a 'He".)
- That would be where the paths diverged.
As Rome and Christianity moved through the world they brought their mores. Rome fell, but Christ stayed. Peoples like the Celts and Romani could only keep their own ways so long before 'Western' values started to seep in.
But I am still confused by your question of "why the father and not the mother?" For whom? The Gitanos, or us?
_____________________________
Callidus et iracundus.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 4 2006 3:12:29
 |
|
kenjo138
Posts: 114
Joined: May 29 2011
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to sonikete)
|
|
|
I don't think you should focus on what is puro or not. You should begin by defining what is flamenco and what isn't instead. For that you should begin to understand what palos belong to the flamenco genealogy. Other aspects are whether the dancer, singer or player are strictly adhering to the compas.
The reason the Gypsy Kings and others are not considered flamenco is because they do not play any of the palos found in flamenco. Flamenco artists have, in the past, incorporated popular music from South America into their repertoire to attract the masses, but these styles were not original to Spain. These are known as toques de ida y vuelta (guitar styles from trips taken). These styles include Rumbas, Guajiras and Colombianas. When bands like Otmar Liebert and Gypsy Kings play mostly Rumbas they are actually playing Cuban music on guitar and not flamenco.
Traditionally, not all artists play every palo of flamenco. Some are well known for only a small subset of palos, something like a speciality. Some guitarists are well known for being good at playing Bulerias, some are better known for their Tangos, other Soleares and so on.
The word puro is a generational thing. It is something that is accepted by the general participants of the art. There are people out there that are respected critics of the music and dance called flamencologos much like food critics. Their opinion is very well respected by the general public in Spain. Typically what they accept as authentic is what is considered puro. Nevertheless, there is an untold rule that qualifies many Gypsies as being puro because they are related to a traditional flamenco heritage. Yes, there are politics involved like everywhere else.
Historically, and still now, there was always a divide between Gypsies (also known as Flamencos) and Payos (Spanish non-Gypsies). They argued mainly that the Payos did not have any duende or aire. Paco de Lucia kind of broke that mold, but then again he learned and played alongside Gypsies. This is akin to Black and non-Black musicians having the Blues or Soul when playing or dancing.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 27 2013 21:42:17
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to kenjo138)
|
|
|
quote:
The reason the Gypsy Kings and others are not considered flamenco is because they do not play any of the palos found in flamenco. Flamenco artists have, in the past, incorporated popular music from South America into their repertoire to attract the masses, but these styles were not original to Spain. These are known as toques de ida y vuelta (guitar styles from trips taken). These styles include Rumbas, Guajiras and Colombianas. When bands like Otmar Liebert and Gypsy Kings play mostly Rumbas they are actually playing Cuban music on guitar and not flamenco.
Even though this a necropost and this topic has been refined in terms of discussions over the last 7 years or so, I can't help but point out some bad generalizations here. First, G Kings do perform tangos, bulerias, fandangos, and even a granaina por rumba in their sets in the past. They consider themselves flamencos, even is most others dont'. There is nothing "cuban" about their music at all other than the conga player, who is colombian anyway. The Rumba clave of latin music is very different than the Rumba guitar compas. Ottmar....he doesn't even know how to strum rumba, and probably doesn't know any latin claves.
About Paco being Payo accepted by gitanos...again over generaliztion and to imply he was the first payo in flamenco to be welcomed by gitanos is also ridiculous. For singers you had Silverio, Chacon, etc, for guitar Manolo de Huelva and Niño Ricardo etc.
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 28 2013 14:31:18
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to Flamencito)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flamencito
quote:
The Gypsy Kings play Rumbas more than anything else. They do also play tangos and fandangos but that's just it, they will only play music that is pleasing to Western audiences (all 4/4 meter music). As for bulerias, I have never heard them play one, at lease none that has ever been in compas.
First, they never claim to be flamenco puro artists (that i know of).
Second, fandangos is not in 4/4.
Third, i've heard them play bulerías in compás.
Other than that i don't think they are to be categorized flamenco puro, but your explaination doesnt make much sense to me...
Again, I dont' understand why I am arguing this point, I have first hand knowledge. I played with them and talked with them. They interpret fandangos naturales in most concerts. Of course it is not in 4/4. But if you understood compas well, you would realize it wouldn't matter even if they did fandangos to an actually Rumba or Son latin clave, it is still fandangos. Taranto is a cante set to compas in 4/4 and nobody ever said that was not "puro". The issue comes down to taste, that's all.
It is quite clear what music audiences of the world prefer.
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 30 2013 0:29:05
|
|
 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
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
9.570313E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
