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: Scandalous Poll
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Scandalous Poll
|
| Yes, they're great! |
|
| No, I hate them! I would rather listen to Ottmar! |
|
| I like some songs |
|
| I like Tonino |
|
Total Votes : 18
|
|
(last vote on : Jul. 21 2013 6:41:21)
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
tanolonco
Posts: 18
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
 RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
Miguel (and i guess others): With all the hoopla and barbs about puro and non puro, I think you and I fell into the trap inherent with typologies--what defines each classification? When one looks into the world of biological typologies, concepts such as phylum, genus, species, etc. are used and each typology has very concrete and measureable characteristics.
In the world of music, no one has defined what is puro and what is non-puro. Even within the concept of flamenco, there are no hard and fast rules--for example one person posted rumba being played in the phyrigian scale is flamenco. The phyrigian scale is often referred to as the church scale and a lot of old church music is in this scale, yet, few would argue the old church music is similiar to say a bulerias. Someone else posted tremelo as a defining characteristic.
I think to end this diatribe, and maybe to set guidelines for the future--guidelines not as a result of fiat, or the fear of having cyber beer tossed around, rather, guidelines set by using good scientific and logic principles. When I said puro, I broke good scientific principles. Puro has not been defined with concrete words that are measureable (hence valid). However, using specific performers is measureable. So, what I should have said is: Music in the style of Sabicas, Nino, and those of that generation. Likewise, those taking the "non-puro" and/or neuvo side, fell in the same trap when they did not identify the characteristics that define those "styles". So here goes as an idea:
In future discussions about what is puro and what is non-puro, these words should be replaced with words that are concrete and have measureable characteristics. Rather than say "puro" one should, following good scientific and logic principles, use more specific and measureable words such as: "in the style of" or "music performed in period X (say 1950's to 1960's as an example). We as members should ask the user of such words to be more concrete.
For example: When I said "puro" someone should have called me to task and said: "Tanolonco, how do you define 'puro'?" It would have then been on my shoulders to clarify my meaning.
Of course, we do have to accept that someone may define something very clearly yet still be adamant about their position--that is another issue, but if a person takes that postion, and is civil about it we do need to accept it .
So, Miguel and others, does this seem to have merit?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 29 2004 14:50:14
 |
|
Jon Boyes
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jul. 10 2003
|
|
RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to tanolonco)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tanolonco
So here goes as an idea:
In future discussions about what is puro and what is non-puro, these words should be replaced with words that are concrete and have measureable characteristics. Rather than say "puro" one should, following good scientific and logic principles, use more specific and measureable words such as: "in the style of" or "music performed in period X (say 1950's to 1960's as an example). ...
So, Miguel and others, does this seem to have merit?
I think even this will cause problems, because you are making assumptions about what other people will think is "in the style of".
Classifying the music by period will not work either, as you have different genres co-existing at the same periods of time, and you run the risk of confusing whether or not something is flamenco, with whether it is traditional or contemporary in style, and these are different things in my mind.
To my mind its quite simple. Someone who plays Solea, Alegrias, Bulerias, Seguiryas, Tangos, etc etc is clearly playing flamenco, because flamenco is a family of styles, each with their own defining characteristics of rhythm and harmony. Whether they play these palos with a modern aire is another matter entirely.
Someone who plays rumba, rumba, rumba rumba, is clearly playing, well, rumba! Nothing wrong with that, but it aint flamenco.
Jon
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 29 2004 15:42:44
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
Maybe this kind of discussion only needs a bit of education and knowledge, but first of all a lot of openmindedness and acceptance of the fact that someone might, with his/her full right, not agree with you, and that it´s exactly what makes these forums exist.
I mean, we´ll always have to strugle with puro/nonpuro subjects, and there´ll always be someoene using the terms, so IMHO it would be easier to learn how to handle the subject instead of blacklisting a word or term, which we in all circumstances would have to deal with anyway.
As I´ve stated before, IMO, the subject is stupid, because flamenco has never been pure. It´s always fusioned, and I can, but dont feel like, put hundreds or thousands of pages of university credited evidence on the table in order to backup this statement.
But why??? If someone feels that he/she knows everything, and that only his brotherinlawsoldestson plays real flamenco,,,,, well that´s not going to make me throw cyberbeer around.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 30 2004 8:50:43
|
|
bindu_72
Posts: 24
Joined: Mar. 12 2004
|
|
RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to Jon Boyes)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jon Boyes
Someone who plays rumba, rumba, rumba rumba, is clearly playing, well, rumba! Nothing wrong with that, but it aint flamenco.
Jon
So in my mind that means if I decided to play bulerias, bulerias, bulerias and well bulerias! then I am clearly playing bulerias. Stands to fact then that im not playing flamenco. To a person new to flamenco I'm sure things will start to get very confusing indeed. Infact maybe there is already an artist out there with 5 albums full of bulerias only. I wonder which section of HMV that would be under - clearly the 'World Music' section as there is'nt a flamenco section due to all this confusion.
I dunno I think this is all pointless and quite trivial. IMO there is music you like and dont like - who gives a toss about the category - rock, pop, blues, jazz, hip-hop, classical its all a big distraction. Just enjoy what your ears like hearing !!!
Bindu
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 30 2004 10:04:40
|
|
Ron.M
Posts: 7051
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Scotland
|
|
RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
I've just been watching some Flamenco from the peñas of Jerez on Ondajerez TV, and I must agree, they never mention Flamenco Puro on that program, only Flamenco.
(In saying that, I can't say I've ever seen the GK's or Jose Feliciano on the program, but maybe I missed those transmissions. LOL)
I must say that I beg to differ about Flamenco absorbing all these other influences I keep hearing about.
Sure, we all know about the Jewish/Gypsy/Byzantine/Moorish beginnings and the Spanish excursions to the New World and the Colombianas and Guajiras etc. but I must honestly say that the good, modern Flamenco I hear these days doesn't differ in essence all that much from what I heard Terremoto and Moraito do forty years ago.
Sure, the style is more sophisticated and the guitar playing much more intricate than back then, but tennis have evolved just as much in that time, without picking up any influences from say, baseball or cricket.
So has Ice Skating and numerous other human activities and endevours.
I personally believe that the best Flamenco has evolved from within itself and not from any outside influences.
I doubt if it needs it.
I think there are probably still enough unexplored resources in that original formula to keep it going that way for long beyond my lifetime.
I believe that Flamenco has, over the last forty years, influenced other styles more than being influenced itself.
The fact that some Flamenco influenced groups wish to claim some sort of Flamenco heritage on their album notes or publicity is between them and their publicity department.
So I would agree on the "puro" aspect.
The word is as redundant as "pure" used in "Tennis" or "Pure Tennis".
There are hundreds of different styles of Music in the World, one of them called "Flamenco".
Not "Puro"... not "Fusion"... not "Avante Garde"....
Just Flamenco.
As Estela said, "If everything is Flamenco, then nothing is."
cheers
Ron
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 30 2004 22:03:17
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
RE: Scandalous Poll (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
I can understand a non-flamenco not liking soleares.
Merle. what is going on??? go back and sleep a bit more. You are loosing it <g>
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 1 2004 7:42:19
|
|
 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
