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.
|
|
|
Different between classical and Flamenco music
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Ailsa
Posts: 2277
Joined: Apr. 17 2007
From: South East England
|
 RE: Different between classical and ... (in reply to Raimundo)
|
|
|
Wow Raimundo, that is such a big question I almost fell off my seat! And I think you need someone more expert than me to answer it. But there are so many differences it's hard to know where to start, and even the obvious things are only generalisations. For example, flamenco tends to learnt through oral tradition, and classical music is written, but that doesn't mean you can't write flamenco!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raimundo
is it the way of play or it's different style of music
Err .... yeah it's both of those too!
quote:
If it's Flamenco. is it Solea or Rumba styles??? how i can know all that ???
Like I saw I'm a newbie, but I tell because there are different palos and compas (underlying structure and rhythms) and common chord sequences that give you a clue. You might hear a particular chord sequence and you know it's Solea. Or a remate, which is a typical phrase on 10 11 12 of Solea. Even when you listen loads, more modern flamenco could be a cross between different musical influences, and so you have to pay more attention to the compas to understand.
Gypsy music? Hmmmm, not sure I can help you define that one! 
C'mon guys, someone who knows more than me say something!! 
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 1 2007 12:31:04
 |
|
Paleto
Posts: 243
Joined: Jul. 29 2003
From: San Diego, CA
|
RE: Different between classical and ... (in reply to Raimundo)
|
|
|
Hi Raimundo,
This is a good question for us to address, I am looking forward to reading the responses of other guitarists here.
My own thoughts are the following:
1) Classical guitarists first study technique studies and etudes, then progress to graded pieces of music, gradually becoming more and more demanding of technique and musicianship. Classical guitarists first typically study M. Giuliani, D. Aguado, F. Sor, F. Tárrega, E. Sagreras, E. Pujol, M. Carcassi, L. Brouwer, H. Villalobos, A. Carlevaro, C. Barbosa-Lima and others, usually focusing on arpeggio, free and rest strokes, left hand stretching and dexterity exercises, scales, tremolo and importantly tone. They develop a nuanced sense for the many colors or tones the guitar is capable of when played efficiently, allowing the guitarist to create somewhat subtle colors or shades of tone.
2) Flamenco guitarists tend to follow a similar pattern of training, but study technique differently. Emphasis is more on rasgueado, alzapúa, thumb and various finger combinations, usually less variety of arpeggios, scales, song forms, and importantly rhythm. The goal traditionally was to learn to accompany a flamenco singer and dancers, although now it has become common to train to be a soloist too I think.
3) Classical guitarists develop a much softer touch in most every technique, also developing excellent reading skills as well as a detailed understanding of the aesthetic and appropriate interpretation for music of each period - Early, Baroque, Classical, then finally contemporary or modern music.
4) Flamenco guitarists focus on learning the various rhythmic variations and chord changes needed for flamenco song forms, learn to embellish a singers melody or create nice chord (harmonic) changes to dramatize a singers verse. There are many things to learn about each song form, and flamenco guitarists spend a lot of time learning how to create the right feel or texture for each song form.
5) One of the major differences is emphasis. While classical relies (this only being general, there are exceptions, and many of them at that) melody and harmony mostly, flamenco relies more on rhythm. In flamenco, rhythm is usually far more important than executing a nice melody. In classical, you can get by not playing the rhythm as well, but playing the melody or harmony well. Flamenco guitarists are typically able to improvise within a song form, taking certain flashes of technique and contrasting it with another, or learning different chord progressions to solo over or within. Classical guitarists (and this is only a generalization) don't spend much of their time learning to improvise. There are always exceptions though. This is just for a general characterization.
6) Flamenco guitarists break a lot of "rules" classical guitarists abide by. Most classical guitarists do not use the thumb on the G, B or high E strings, flamenco guitarists use the thumb extensively on those strings. Flamenco guitarists use the thumb in alzapúa, creating powerful remates toward the end of phrases in ways classical guitarists likely didn't think possible. In other words, flamenco guitarists make far more extensive use of the thumb, which is the most powerful finger of them all and when played well sounds amazing.
7) A more subjective point from my experience, is that classical guitarists have a very refined sense of what is musical, and the result is a very refined art. Flamenco is more directly aimed at and coming from strong emotions, and while there are more delicate moments in flamenco, it is far more intense by and large. Flamenco, as I experience it, comes across as a little rougher around the edges, but also more directly, which is what appeals to many people who enjoy it.
Gotta go, I'll check in later.
-Anthony
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 1 2007 18:09:24
|
|
andresito
Posts: 377
Joined: Feb. 20 2007
From: New Holland
|
|
RE: Different between classical and ... (in reply to gato)
|
|
|
That was a pretty exhaustive response Paleto! Cheers
I would only like to say that Flamenco and classical are two different results to two totally different historical situations. Flamenco is historically the gypsy's expression through a guitar, voice, clapping and stomping, of anguish, pain, joy, love, despair, longing, partying...
Classical guitar music (much of which was actually not written originally for guitar but probably for piano) derives more form the lofty ideals of conservatory trained composers - music to be played at the royal court or in theatres. Traditionally it treated the guitar as part of an orchestra but the solo aspect was advanced particularly by some Spanish masters.
A hopelessly broad and condensed generalisation but there you go...
Some researchers say that both classical and flamenco guitars were originally one and the same thing regarding builders' specs but have diverged. Both have nylon strings, but flamenco probably has as much in common with Indian music as it does with European classical.
_____________________________
¡este arbol tiene duende, cabron!
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 13 2007 10:47:23
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Different between classical and ... (in reply to Raimundo)
|
|
|
I read a great aricle awhile back about the early classical guitar and its relation to flamenco. It was in an old flamenco magazine called "la Caña" I think. Anyway, it was very interesting. The basic Idea of the article was that flamenco and classical guitar started out with some people playing both. The styles, technique wise and intrumental/falseta wise, were being developed at the same time and artists had contact with each other. Julian Arcas composed pieces with flamenco titles such as "rondena", "soleares" etc, and if you listen to some of his arps, they are just like what you do in solea or fandango or alegrias for example. A lot of the standard licks or traditional flamenco like say playing solea for escobilla or alegrias escobilla, that kind of thing, came from Patiño, and I can't remember the name, but concert programs of SOLO GUITAR CONCERTS where done by Patiño and others, which programs included classical spanish zarzuelas and stuff mixed with flamenco.
So Arcas Tarrega etc developed the classical guitar, while still connected to flamenco and composing flamenco based pieces, and then guys like Miguel Borrul I think?, hung out and/or studied classical guitar and started developing classical influenced flamenco pieces. Ramon Montoya worked with or studied with Borull so it is thought that alot of his stuff has a direct relation throught the chain, to Arcas.
In anycase, there became a clear separation at the time of the cante meeting of Falla, Lorca Segovia etc, a way to save the pure gipsy singing that was "disappearing" so they felt. So Segovia, an andalucian who played guitar, but arranged classical peices from all periods rather than to compose like Tarrega and others, wanted to separate the classical guitar from the party music guitar, so he could play on concert stage.
The irony is that he claims to be an aficionado of flamenco, but good flamenco guitar is only accompaniment, yet using a guitar to bang out chords in a tablao was very inferior to what he was doing on the concert stage. He wanted to make the guitar equal to other instruments like Piano or Cello, so the idea of flamenco guitar being equal meaning the same instrument with same technique etc, was not good, so classical guitar needed to be ABOVE the flamenco guitar.
So it really is thanks to him that there became a clearly defined separation of the two styles, and probably the subsequent lack of respect for each other in a lot of cases. Although there have been exceptions through the years of players/composers of both styles (Esteban de Sanlucar for example), in general, you have Ramon Montoya at the start of Concert Flamenco guitar, vs Segovia as the start of the Concert Classical guitar, as it has been ever since.
Before that time we really can't say what was going on because we don't have recordings. Was Arcas really "flamenco" as we think of it today? We can't really say because we only have his scores, and we all know that a score does not show really how someone actually PLAYED. Recordings of Arcas are only done by classical players. And of course if there were virtuoso flamenco players with techniques and sophisticated music beating or rivaling Tarrega, we can never know because flamenco players did not write any notes.
Sorry if I am off on any of this, it was based on my memory of the article, which was very well researched unlike my above attempt to recall it.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 13 2007 20:29:10
|
|
 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 |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
Out of interest, would you separate 'Spanish classical guitar' from simply 'Classical guitar'? I actually got into guitar trying to play Spanish classical but it was more the 'spanish-ness' than the 'classical-ness' (and that I can't play 'clean' classical) that eventually made me switch to Flamenco. 
