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: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
Diego del Gastor > Son de la Fron...
I recently began reading about the "moron school" of flamenco. I also recently read interviews with SdlF, which maybe along with other things I "bumped into" got me interested in this Moron school.
I also figured it was time to find out who this Diego del Gastor was when he was at home. I acquired some of his music and was just listening to a compilation entitled El Eco De Unos Toques, and it is the same music, same order even, as that on the LP Homenaje a Diego del Gastor by SdlF.
Now I'm struck by several odd sensations. Should I feel ripped-off? This tribute was a remake of a whole LP's worth of material. If I remake a movie, is that really an homage to the original?
Setting that aside, I'm struck by other observations. DdelG was a great tocaor. It's obvious from the jaleos the audience felt so. But I get the same feeling as when I listen to Sabicas. I think that when compared to good players of today who play modern instruments with modern strings, with some of the precision that has has filtered in from persons with classical training these old greats sound lacking. I do try to put the prejudices of my modern ear aside, but that thought keeps creeping up on me (especially with the graininess of the recordings).
AFAIK, unlike Sabicas, Diego del Gastor was famous not so much for being a virtuoso, but for the conveyance of feeling he managed. I can see/feel that there is great expression, but I wonder, being a child of my age, what I'm not picking up on. Anyone help with that? (I do also have to keep in mind that SdlF is playing a composition, while DdelG was probably actively composing.)
When I compare the playing of SdlF to Diego delGastor, I can really hear the difference in modern technique and hardware (I'm also sure that recording hardware also makes a huge difference) and there's a lot to ponder, but I'm not experienced with technique, instruments, strings and sound equipment to even try to analyse and/or contrast these. So I was hoping you all could chime in a bit.
What I hear in the modern player are cleaner, crisper played notes, both from technique and sound. Less buzz in the strings, less "buzz" in the harmonics. I think I hear a different spacing in the timing and I also hear a difference in the weight(?) applied to strokes.
How much of this is due to techniques changing, due to mixing of styles (even just among flamencos, but yes, inclusion of classical techniques)?
How much has technique changed over the last 30-50-80 years based on luthier-craft and string quality?
How much has style changed over the last 30-50-80 years based on luthier-craft and string quality?
How much has the sound of our instruments changed over the last 30-50-80 years, how much has string quality afected luthiers' techniques? How much has recording affected luthiers' goals and work? (e.g. my guitar is built on plans from circa 1951, even so, how different might this 2008 guitar be compared to a 1951 guitar, considering that mine has some composite materials in the neck to allow for the neck to be as thin as possible, the tone wood was chosen based on more modern theories or aesthetics, the bridge is likely a newer design allowing for a different angle of break in the string, and &c - will this sound "better"? will this allow for more varied techniques? how many other changes could result? sustain?)
Lord knows how many musicians have listened to their playing in recordings or on a monitor and made stylistic changes to take advantage of of sound systems...
So I've babbled a lot in this post. SdlF v. DdelG. Moron school/style Homage v. remake Changes in technique and styles and possible bi-directional influences based on changes in quality of instruments and strings and recording equipment.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
If i honestly compare classical guitar technique to flamenco technique, then i see almost no parallels. Even a simple arpeggio i often hear played differently in both styles. I think both styles are faar more different from each other than many people think. They are often confused if you say that Asturias or Spanish classical guitar is actually not flamenco. On the other hand, modern flamenco is also not classical. The fact that modern is cleaner (which is also a bit of a prejudice) or rather more virtuoso than traditional doesnt make it closer to "classical" to me.
How much it changed because of string quality? 0%. Take Ramon Montoyas guitar, put on gut strings or whatever and give it to a modern player. It will sound modern.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deniz
If i honestly compare classical guitar technique to flamenco technique, then i see almost no parallels. Even a simple arpeggio i often hear played differently in both styles. I think both styles are faar more different from each other than many people think. They are often confused if you say that Asturias or Spanish classical guitar is actually not flamenco. On the other hand, modern flamenco is also not classical. The fact that modern is cleaner (which is also a bit of a prejudice) or rather more virtuoso than traditional doesnt make it closer to "classical" to me.
Well, I'm not sure I have read you well. I am not comparing classical to flamenco techniques in any way.
I understand that some Spanish guitar, really is/was flamenco. However, you listen to the flamenco music in Segovia's repertoire, and as played by classical guitarists you can clearly hear it is played according to classical techniques. People from this foro would criticise such clips on youtube for many of these details... Sure, we've seen it happen.
However, classical technique always stressed a certain amount of cleanness and precision that I think was absent in older flamenco. And while certain classical techniques are just wrong in flamenco, the classical methodology of perfecting techniques may be what filtered into flamenco. Would you argue that modern tocaores do not play "cleaner" (by a classical standard) than those of 30 years ago?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deniz How much it changed because of string quality? 0%. Take Ramon Montoyas guitar, put on gut strings or whatever and give it to a modern player. It will sound modern.
I can't say I know anything about this guitar. What year was it built in? Would it handle all of the hard tensions popular now?
So you say strings make a big difference. OK.
But the guitar you reference, compared to a guitar made by a luthier or the same relative fame/quality today, even from the same plans, would they sound the same? Or would all the little details that have become standard for today make a significant difference in the sound? Often times we don't even use the same woods either...
As for strings affecting modern technique, I think I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. Read the criteria by which people judge guitar stings here. Response. Intonation. Things that allow for stronger attack, better sounding faster techniques for multiple rasgeos, for alzapua, picado.
If you listen to the two sets of audio recordings I mention above, you'll hear how the speed of Diego's playing and the quality of the strings clearly muddles some of the sounds, it may even have a certain aesthetic charm, but then listen to the modern playing of the same notes on a newer instruments with newer strings. It's a stark contrast.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
flamenco music in Segovia's repertoire
There was none. (Segovia started out playing flamenco in his youth, but he later denied it and most classical players don't even know about it). But this is off topic. You wondered:
quote:
AFAIK, unlike Sabicas, Diego del Gastor was famous not so much for being a virtuoso, but for the conveyance of feeling he managed. I can see/feel that there is great expression, but I wonder, being a child of my age, what I'm not picking up on.
There's a whole curious history about how a few Americans "discovered" Diego, decided that he was the only great flamenco guitarist in the world, and one thing led to another, resulting in the creation of a cult in which he is still the greatest flamenco guitarist that ever was or will be, and flamenco ended with him and his nephew Dieguito.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
As for Segovia, there are recordings of him playing fandanguillos or tanguillos and/or some such. Yeah, he denied ever playing flamenco, called it folk music and said he only played classical music. I understand what he was trying to do, lift the guitar beyond the level of folk instrument, but it was kinda BS too. Off topic? A little, just serves to demonstrate that that the real differences are more arbitrary than anything.
Dieguito, would be Diego de Moron?
I mean, they did play amazingly, and I don't really care for deciding who was the best or such. But I wonder if there's more that I'm supposed to be listening for as regards these older style players.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
Exitao,
what i meant was that modern flamenco did not resolve BECAUSE of strings, guitars, etc. Setup never determines style. It is important factor of the sound, but it doesnt predict you the style. Ramon Montoya was the one who is said of having introduced techniques like arpeggio to flamenco. You can regard him as traditional, as his guitar of that time.
quote:
classical technique always stressed a certain amount of cleanness and precision that I think was absent in older flamenco
Well you thought wrong then! Listen to Paco Cepero YouTube video that has been posted here lately. Its traditional style but very precise. Preciseness is not determined by style, more by the players. There are also modern players who play a bit "muddy". But in general modern is SUPPOSED to be played a bit "cleaner". Nonetheless, if you think cleanness in a classical way (no string buzzing) then you have to change your view for flamenco. String buzzing in flamenco is definitely not considered unclean, but rather a very beatiful style of accentuation, which is not so easy to dose precisely by the way.
Last but not least, i think your method of applying or trying to apply classical standards to flamenco raise the questions you are asking yourself now. The reason of your confusion is that you think: "flamenco is folk music, so why doesnt it sound like that nowadays?" But flamenco is not folk music. Same with the technique. You seem to think a good technique, or the "method" of perfecting techniques was a classical way. But technique is always just a means, and the decision of how far you want to perfect it is a matter of the music you want to play. Many guitar styles have their own technical challenges to master. Not only classical guitar.
And really, Segovia did not play flamenco. Even if the notes were flamenco, his playing will never be flamenco
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
who is SdlF?
The point about a bunch of Americans "deifying" Diego Del Gastor is a good point.
I once heard Gerardo Nuñez talk about an American woman who wrote a book about flamenco in the 50's and now everyone in America thinks that's the only way to play flamenco (he illustrated this with a perfect examply of 1950's Morón style Bulería). My impression was that he was pretty well disgusted by foreigners telling him the "proper" to play his music.
There's also the story that Sabicas (or it might have been Niño Ricardo, can't remember) heard of this "legendary" tocaor in Morón and went down there to check him out. Sure enough he ended up in a Juerga but Diego wouldn't play in front of him. All night the booze and the flamenco flowed, but Diego wouldn't play. Eventually when half the people had staggered off, just as the sun was coming up, Diego began to play and the great maestro Sabicas (or Ricardo, whoever) was duly reduced to tears.
At this point I would like to refer all reading this to the thread about can Musicians Play on Street Drugs or Alcohol a while back (I hope it didn't get lost during the attack of the killer Bob).
The point is, maybe the great thing about Diego Del Gastor is that he could play at all when everyone around him was too drunk to, and that in that state his playing was divine. Maybe you had to be in that state to really appreciate it. Maybe you had to spend all night drinking with the guy and he made some kind of connection so when he played it really touched you... who knows... he certainly had something, but it wasn't exactly virtuosity, judging by the recordings and film that I've seen and heard. A certain character and personality, yes, which came across more in the film clips I've seen, and he really seemed to connect with the audience, and they obviously all loved him, so it was like a ritual communion or something.
I always think the idea of there being any kind of "school" of flamenco is anathema to flamenco itself....
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to XXX)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deniz
Exitao,
what i meant was that modern flamenco did not resolve BECAUSE of strings, guitars, etc. Setup never determines style. It is important factor of the sound, but it doesnt predict you the style. Ramon Montoya was the one who is said of having introduced techniques like arpeggio to flamenco. You can regard him as traditional, as his guitar of that time.
quote:
classical technique always stressed a certain amount of cleanness and precision that I think was absent in older flamenco
Well you thought wrong then! Listen to Paco Cepero YouTube video that has been posted here lately. Its traditional style but very precise. Preciseness is not determined by style, more by the players. There are also modern players who play a bit "muddy". But in general modern is SUPPOSED to be played a bit "cleaner". Nonetheless, if you think cleanness in a classical way (no string buzzing) then you have to change your view for flamenco. String buzzing in flamenco is definitely not considered unclean, but rather a very beatiful style of accentuation, which is not so easy to dose precisely by the way.
Last but not least, i think your method of applying or trying to apply classical standards to flamenco raise the questions you are asking yourself now. The reason of your confusion is that you think: "flamenco is folk music, so why doesnt it sound like that nowadays?" But flamenco is not folk music. Same with the technique. You seem to think a good technique, or the "method" of perfecting techniques was a classical way. But technique is always just a means, and the decision of how far you want to perfect it is a matter of the music you want to play. Many guitar styles have their own technical challenges to master. Not only classical guitar.
And really, Segovia did not play flamenco. Even if the notes were flamenco, his playing will never be flamenco
You are intellectually aggressive. I appreciate this, but I just want to ensure we're not being hostile. I'm not, and knowing Germans the way I do, I don't think you intend to be. So let's not give the others a wrong impression.
Re: Set-up, strings &c I have to answer this in a roundabout way. For anyone just starting flamenco guitar, it's often said that any old classical will be good enough - to start. It's also said that they will eventually need a flamenco in order to use proper flamenco technique. Why? Because of what the flamenco set-up allows. Set-ups have evolved, are still evolving. Partly to suit technique, partly to facilitate technique. And as they evolve, it is certain that technique evolves too. What you couldn't easily do, you may find easier now. Maybe there are quirks to a set-up that create possibilities...
Strings and luthiery do change technique. Look at the guitar's predecessor, the vihuela. Due to the limits of craftsmanship, IRC, most music was still limited to 2/2 time. Better vihuelas, then guitars and better guitars have made music possible that wasn't possible. Look at strings, from gut to steel and nylon, to composites and so on. Of course, the last 100 years haven't caused for exponential leaps, but surely incremental changes. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that all of modern flamenco is due to x. I'm saying x has probably influenced at least parts of modern flamenco, and I'm interested to know what and how.
Re: Ramon Montoya So he was traditional, and he adopted some classical techniques? I don't find that to be contradictory, although some might. However, you are illustrating my point, classical technique did filter in, but such things are viral, not everyone adopts these things at once, it would take many years to see how it really spread and affected the art form, wouldn't it?
Re: Styles, Standards and Technique
I actually have seen the video of Cepero, I actually have 3 much longer videos on my hard drive. I would think his precision is what set him apart and made him great. He has an amazing technique. When I listen to very old recordings of cante, I hear that very few back then had his technique.
Buzzing, AFAIK, comes from set-up, or poor fretting. If we're talking about poor fretting, the artist probably doesn't deserve to be among the examples listed here.
But the artists commonly spoken of here have amazing tone, have a "basic" technique that makes you certain that if they bothered to play something classical they'd have no problem (e.g. PDL and Concierto de Aranjuez, or that LP he did of world tunes), and yes, they also have technique that's found only in flamenco. Could the same have been said about the tocaor corriente, or common player 20 years ago? But even Ceparo commented in an interview that young people today have technique they didn't in his day.
Re: "Flamenco is not folk music" I have never thought of it in the terms of "flamenco is folk music, so why doesnt it sound like that nowadays?" It's an interesting thought to ponder, but never one of mine.
You have sort of proven my point. Essentially you are saying that the level of Flamenco technique has caused it to transcend the status of folk music. However, you are wrong to contend that Flamenco is not folk.
"Folk" indicates something that has come from the common people. It's a German-rooted word, you know this. Flamenco came from a very specific people, a Spanish sub-culture, during a time that Spanish culture was very stratified; the Andalucians. Until recently it was passed on as most folk customs, through repetition and memorisation. When instruments (i.e. guitar) started playing the music, it wasn't notated but recorded in tab.
Classical music, by contrast was written by society's "elite." It was generally always written in notation (except for some practical purposes), by educated people. Music theory = education.
Rock, country, blues music is also folk. But just because Steve Vai comes along and introduces classical technique to shredding doesn't make rock transcend its folk status. Just because the Queen invites McCartney and other rockers to play before her doesn't do the trick either. - It's a question of origins. Which brings a bigger off-topic, yet contentious question, can a person not indoctrinated into flamenco culture (i.e. not having lived it) ever truly be a flamenco? Don't try to answer that, in this thread at least.
Offence or revulsion to the term folk is uncalled for. To consider the term pejorative indicates elitist thinking or aspirations to higher classes. This is the music of a specific people and we shouldn't forget it or try to remove it from its cultural context, to forget this is a disservice to the people who created this.
Posts: 1827
Joined: Jul. 8 2003
From: Living in Granada, Andalucía
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to mark indigo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: mark indigo
who is SdlF?
Son De La Frontera, a group from Moron de la Frontera who combine flamenco with the Cuban Tres. I believe some of the group are actually related to Diego del Gastor and he is their main influence, reworking his material. They have been extremely successful both in Spain and internationally.
For me Diego del Gastor's style makes me think of Gypsy music from other parts of Europe, a sort of hurdy gurdy sound. At least that was my impression seeing Dieguito play live. I dont get that from Son De la Frontera though.
The reason Diego is so well known is that he was featured in a book written in English by Don Pohren, an American who settled in Spain. American visitors to the nearby American Base flocked to Don Pohren's finca where juergas were organised on a regular basis. Moron went from being an unknown village to a magnet for flamenco seekers and Diego became a somewhat reluctant star. Don Pohren eventually got tired of people knocking on his door and he left for Madrid.
ORIGINAL: mark indigo The point about a bunch of Americans "deifying" Diego Del Gastor is a good point.
I once heard Gerardo Nuñez talk about an American woman who wrote a book about flamenco in the 50's and now everyone in America thinks that's the only way to play flamenco (he illustrated this with a perfect examply of 1950's Morón style Bulería). My impression was that he was pretty well disgusted by foreigners telling him the "proper" to play his music.
There's also the story that Sabicas (or it might have been Niño Ricardo, can't remember) heard of this "legendary" tocaor in Morón and went down there to check him out. Sure enough he ended up in a Juerga but Diego wouldn't play in front of him. All night the booze and the flamenco flowed, but Diego wouldn't play. Eventually when half the people had staggered off, just as the sun was coming up, Diego began to play and the great maestro Sabicas (or Ricardo, whoever) was duly reduced to tears.
At this point I would like to refer all reading this to the thread about can Musicians Play on Street Drugs or Alcohol a while back (I hope it didn't get lost during the attack of the killer Bob).
The point is, maybe the great thing about Diego Del Gastor is that he could play at all when everyone around him was too drunk to, and that in that state his playing was divine. Maybe you had to be in that state to really appreciate it. Maybe you had to spend all night drinking with the guy and he made some kind of connection so when he played it really touched you... who knows... he certainly had something, but it wasn't exactly virtuosity, judging by the recordings and film that I've seen and heard. A certain character and personality, yes, which came across more in the film clips I've seen, and he really seemed to connect with the audience, and they obviously all loved him, so it was like a ritual communion or something.
I always think the idea of there being any kind of "school" of flamenco is anathema to flamenco itself....
You mean this story?
quote:
Niño Ricardo, from A WAY OF LIFE by Donn Pohren "I decided to see what all the hubbub was about, this Diego del Gastor fellow, so I got some señorito friends of mine to hire him for a juerga. When he showed up they explained to him that they had hired another guitarist as well, so that he wouldn't have to tire himself out.
"Diego recognized me right away - I was well-known, and my photo was splattered about here and there - and it was obvious the poor guy was dying to get out of there. But he was stuck and he knew it; he couldn't have just left without losing face. I watched him while I played. He seemed to shrink, and refused to touch the guitar throughout the night. All he did was drink, and I was feeling quite contemptuous after some hours. I was warmed up and playing well - really well - and it was painfully obvious that Diego had been had.
"Then around five or six in the morning, when Diego's hair began springing away from the back of his head, he began looking more animated, started talking it up and encouraging me with 'oles', and I must admit I felt a tinge of worry deep in my stomach. But he continued refusing to touch the guitar until about eight in the morning.
"He then actually asked for the guitar. I handed it to him, and he started playing a slow-motion soleá like I didn't know existed. He played about a tenth of the notes I had, and each note rang clear and true, emotional like no playing I had ever heard. When he made tears spring to my eyes I knew the one who had been had was I. The very essence of this man emerged through his playing. He arrived directly at the soul of flamenco without frills or ****. You might say that Diego is flamenco. The rest of us are something else, professionals only too often lost in the technicalities of the instrument."
Never heard of it. ;-)
There's a web page "dedicated" to DdelG and the Morón school, it's where I found the Ricardo quote above. http://www.gypsyflamenco.com
The stories told don't seem to discredit the suggestion that it was a bunch of foreigners (not just Americans, although it is fun to blame them for everything, I do think factualness is more important than Canada's national pastime of American-bashing, I'm Canadian, BTW) who elevated Diego.
Although in their defence, I would say that when it comes to Flamenco and you finally encounter someone who makes you "get it" completely, it's hard not to fall in love or develop a heterosexual-man-crush.
The point of Gastor's expressiveness kind of brings me back to the Cepero interviews I read. Cepero said that essentially new players have amazing technique, but lack fundamentals that they can only get by going out and living it.
Which is a tough pill to swallow, because being Canadian and living up here in my igloo (it's true, an American told me ) where we have no hardship, poverty or Andalucians, I fail to see how I'll ever be flamenco. But at least I have mad technique to look forward to (I wish).
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Kate)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kate
quote:
ORIGINAL: mark indigo
who is SdlF?
Son De La Frontera, a group from Moron de la Frontera who combine flamenco with the Cuban Tres. I believe some of the group are actually related to Diego del Gastor and he is their main influence, reworking his material. They have been extremely successful both in Spain and internationally.
For me Diego del Gastor's style makes me think of Gypsy music from other parts of Europe, a sort of hurdy gurdy sound. At least that was my impression seeing Dieguito play live. I dont get that from Son De la Frontera though.
The reason Diego is so well known is that he was featured in a book written in English by Don Pohren, an American who settled in Spain. American visitors to the nearby American Base flocked to Don Pohren's finca where juergas were organised on a regular basis. Moron went from being an unknown village to a magnet for flamenco seekers and Diego became a somewhat reluctant star. Don Pohren eventually got tired of people knocking on his door and he left for Madrid.
One of the tocaores, Paco de Amparo is his grand-nephew.
Thanks for the fill-in on some history. Did I ever ask if you have a sister just like you?
Kate, to be clear, este Dieguito is also known as ?
I don't mean to sound rude, just a bit of academic curiousity, when I look at Diego de Morón's features as he plays (in the youtube clip linked to in his name) and in this , did he have any neurological deficits?
Anyone know, in the late 1960's through early 1970's how much money were these foreigners probably infusing into this town Morón de la Frontera? Renting rooms, buying food and drinks, paying for lessons and juergas... I got the impression that this wasn't a rich town either.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
You mean this story?
you could be, i read that book about 15 years ago, so that's probably where I misremembered it from. I think I read all his books back then.
quote:
I once heard Gerardo Nuñez talk about an American woman who wrote a book about flamenco in the 50's and now everyone in America thinks that's the only way to play flamenco (he illustrated this with a perfect example of 1950's Morón style Bulería). My impression was that he was pretty well disgusted by foreigners telling him the "proper" to play his music.
I think he was referring to Donn Pohren.... I guess he didn't care much for the "cult" of Diego. I probably misrembered some details of that story too, only I was at least in the room for that one.
quote:
I don't mean to sound rude, just a bit of academic curiousity, when I look at Diego de Morón's features as he plays (in the youtube clip linked to in his name) and in this youtube vid here, did he have any neurological deficits?
Judging by the sniffing and wiping his nose at the very beginning, not to mention the crazy gurning while playing, I'd say he's just had a whopping great big line of charlie up his hooter!
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
Kate, to be clear, este Dieguito is also known as Diego de Morón?
(If I may answer on behalf of my sister) yes, that's the one.
I know someone who studied with him and DdG back in the day. Of Dieguito he told me "That guy once charged me five dollars for one falseta! Five bucks was a lot of money in 1968!"
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
[Exitao:] As for Segovia, there are recordings of him playing fandanguillos or tanguillos and/or some such.
Those are 'classical' compositions - 'Fandanguillo' by Moreno-Torroba, 'Garrotin y Soleares' by Turina, that really have nothing to do with flamenco (I don't know why Turina used that title).
quote:
[Deniz:] And really, Segovia did not play flamenco. Even if the notes were flamenco, his playing will never be flamenco
You can not know that unless you heard him play flamenco, and the last time he did that was in 1922. You're probably too young. We've been through all this before, but I'll say it again: Segovia played flamenco when he was very young, and his first guitar had previously belonged to Paco de Lucena. Many years later he lied about his past and said a lot of stupid things about flamenco. Here's the whole story: 'Andres Segovia: su relacion con el arte flamenco' por Eusebio Rioja
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Estevan)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estevan
quote:
Kate, to be clear, este Dieguito is also known as Diego de Morón?
(If I may answer on behalf of my sister) yes, that's the one.
I know someone who studied with him and DdG back in the day. Of Dieguito he told me "That guy once charged me five dollars for one falseta! Five bucks was a lot of money in 1968!"
Yes, you may certainly answer for your sister. All that matters is the knowledge. I'm glad to see I guessed right. Every time I guess right it's like one step closer to an ego high. :-P
Over at that one site I linked to that has the stories &c, the owner also has a collection of falsetas for sale that he says he collected while at Morón de la Frontera. $110 for 450 falsetas, in the Morón style of course, along with CDs or tapes with audio examples of how they should sound. That's a bargain at $0.25 each and the recordings thrown in. Forget Faucher, I'm going Morón style
(BTW: I once paid a magician friend of mine $5 for an "illusion" because I thought it was incredibly elegant and I knew he needed the money more than I, but that was in the 90's LOL)
Posts: 14833
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
Regarding Diego del Gastor, my opinion is that he had a following because of the quote of Nino Ricardo there, his description sums it up pretty well. He would 'hold out" until the right moment, and when he played, he played with strength and conviction, and CHARISMA, slowly, and made each note count. I say the thing you are "missing" on recordings is that charisma. Watch the RITO Y GEOGRAFIA videos, especially solea and siguiriyas to understand what I mean. I think he was a very good player, it is not ALL hype. In terms of his style, well, I recognize falsetas of Ramon Montoya and Javier Molina, etc, meaning, a lot of the "moron style" is about that delivery, not just the notes themselves. IMO, the folks that copy his style typically lack two important things, 1. his precision (yeah that means I think he has some real technique there, even if he played slow), and 2. his Charisma. The look in his eye and his body language, his projection of the music. The nephew is copying this but sort of over does it, and yeah, the thing about charlie in the hooter is a problem for a lot of artists.
About the technique, classical flamenco whatever, technique is not something one should 'hear' necessarily. As Nino Ricardo admited, it got in the way of his own playing, but he played music that was hard, and tried to do it very fast. I personally don't think speed and technique are same thing, but it seems a lot of people have the opinion that when they hear someone playing fast, they lable them as "technical" players. I dont' think modern players have more technique than some old timers, but the music is more sophisticated for sure. IMO, there are LOTS of old school licks and tricks that take a lot of coordination, that you might not need to interpret modern flamenco. Even though some old school flamenco SOUNDS not sophisticated, alot of it is still technically demanding to pull off clean and in rhythm.
About the intrument itself, well, unlike the classical guitar, the flamenco guitar has not really changed at all in its design since Santos Hernandez and Esteso (the guys who built for Manuel Ramirez). The set up of bridge, bracing, etc, of a modern esteso is copying very much the ideas of the old one. True, the WOOD is different. I read somewhere that trees don't grow the same as they did before, and that was part of the secret of the Stradavarius, or rather, why you can't really build one the exact same today with today's wood. Guitars are much younger than violins, but I think there may be something to it. Strings are an important factor I think though. Gut was very different than nylon, but remember when nylon first came out, flamenco players were really happy about it. You can still get those old style Labella black nylon strings, and put them on old guitars, but a modern player will still have the "modern sound". Likewise, an old school player can still get that old sound out of a modern guitar with modern carbon composite strings or whatever.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
re: Diego v. Dieguito There's two youtube clips of Dieguito, at different ages playing the same solea, however, in the clip with the younger him accompanying Joselero, his playing was almost electric, as opposed to the one where he plays it solo. Would anyone who accompanies be able to comment how being part of a group effort changes your expression?
It would seem to me that playing with feeling must require a minimal level of technique, because without that, you don't have the vocabulary to express yourself, do you?
There is a youtube clip of Diego dG playing Fur Elise. He had good "chops."
re: technique I never would have made such a sweeping generalisation that said all modern players or all "old timers" (not my words, I think). Certainly there is a great amount of variability. However, how many people go directly into flamenco without prior guitar experience? The great majority who do were born to it. But unless you were born in specific geographical regions, odds are better than chance that you started with a different style of guitar. When I listen to old recordings and note the things that makes some accompaniment seem "rough" those details are quite different than those I notice in uploads here and on youtube. I think the technical bases people are approaching from may be different now, especially as flamenco is internationalised (can that really happen?).
re: The machinery Well, I don't know necessarily how much of a difference the age of a tree, or the era the tree was seeded and felled makes; I hadn't even considered or heard of that. I had more though about simply that there are greater varieties of woods, different combinations of woods and it seems that there are some pretty arcane or technical methodologies for the selection of woods too, at least that's what I gather from my brief readings.
Like I said before I wonder what difference, if any, newer "technologies" in luthiery make. For example, I knew my bridge was different when I bought the guitar, but it wasn't until I had to restring it that I fully realised how it was different. I used to do the figure eight, but this one you feed the string through the rear of the bridge twice (two holes for each string), which kind of makes a clove hitch on the bases, but has to have an additional little "s" loop fed back on the trebles. This is my first flamenco, so I can't really say what difference it makes, but the luthier must like it... The point was that while the big stuff has remained the same, there have been at least some subtle changes over the years.
How long has this ideal set-up people describe (nmm at the 12th fret...) been considered ideal?
And as it regards strings, how much do strings affect sound and how much do they affect playability?
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Exitao
Buzzing, AFAIK, comes from set-up, or poor fretting.
Do you mean buzzing is something that should not happen?
quote:
You have sort of proven my point. Essentially you are saying that the level of Flamenco technique has caused it to transcend the status of folk music. However, you are wrong to contend that Flamenco is not folk.
I meant it the opposite way you want me to mean it, LOL. Flamenco technique was never really easy, so it doesnt had the 'problem' of transcending something, which it never was: folk music. For example, sevillanas are considered folk music. A Solea is not folk. The development of flamenco makes it harder though, because also those "popular" (from latin, populus=folk) forms like Sevillanas and Rumba have been developed by the musicians. A modern Sevillanas or Rumba is not really folk music. Folk, in my view, means = appealing to a wide(!) audience (Folk = Volk (germ.) = Unity of people in a country). Flamenco, in its core with the 12beat forms, IMO was never "designed" to appeal many people (here: in Spain). Let alone that this music is a mixture of different folks/cultures althogether. It would be a very brave thesis to say it is or was folk music, but im not a historian. That the flamenco TODAY has nothing to do with folk music should be clear without history though.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
Look up "folk" in wikipedia. When applied to lore, or art or music, it refers to its origins.
Flamenco, came from the "common" people of a specific culture. A subculture that was alienated, in fact. Definitely not high art or high culture.
Until recently it wasn't recorded or transcribed. You learned it by living it and by having it shown to you. There were no teaching "methods" someone showed you the toque, or baile and you did your best to copy it. * Asi se toca/baila. - Asi? * No. Mira otra vez... a...si. - Asi? * Poco mejor. Otra vez, fijate. Asi. Vez? Over and over until you learn it through repetition, memorisation and internalisation.
Just because we have modern methods for teaching and modern transcriptions doesn't make it "high" art. Same goes for rhythm and blues, punk rock or metal, no matter how much classical technique you put into it or when you compose. Just because it's "folk" doesn't mean it can't be marvellously complex.
For flamenco to transcend beyond "folk" it has to evolve beyond being what flamenco is now. And I'll be over at the other foro because at least I'll recognise the subject matter.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
For flamenco to transcend beyond "folk" it has to evolve beyond being what flamenco is now
Why? Only because your definition of flamenco is about the culture and gitanos(C) doing it, instead of the music, the art?
"High art" to you doesnt refer to the music, but the people doing it. If its the low people, then it must be folk music. The high people make "high art". (by the way: why isnt the upperclass also folk? arent they also a "specific culture"?...) So if a lower class human composes and plays the same music as a classical human, you say its not the same music? Thats a contradiction.
quote:
Just because we have modern methods for teaching and modern transcriptions doesn't make it "high" art.
I thought we were talking about the music itself, not the teaching methods and transcripting? Frankly, flamenco today IS high art and regarded the most guitaristic and challenging styles for guitar. Scott Tennant refers to flamenco techniques as useful for classic.
As a last point: You ignore that Music and its appeal on people changes. If you want to reduce everything to its roots, then every music is folk music, because it derives from the music "we" did with wooden sticks or whatever, when all folks/humanity was located in Africa many hundred tousand years ago. There you have your origins.
Today, classical guitar music is taught and played multiple times more than flamenco (in germany at least). Asturias or Romance was maybe not composed as "folk" piece, but its popularity is comparable big. Its wide acceptance makes it a kind of folk piece. It (maybe) WASNT composed as folk music, but it became one.
quote:
Same goes for rhythm and blues, punk rock or metal, no matter how much classical technique you put into it or how much "fine" art you plagiarise when you compose.
No offense, but, someone who doesnt even notice that buzzing strings in flamenco are used as an element of style should not really convinced of being qualified to judge flamenco technique. You invent all these theories on honestly very little experience. Musicwise, techniquewise and in regard to what effects have guitar and string construction. You have kind of an academic urge to deduce a whole music genre from a variety from factors, like "culture", "classical technique" (which seems to you like the alpha et omega method (=perfecting) of guitar playing, as if other styles would never perfect their technique), and "guitars and strings". The reason why this doesn work, is because music is an expression of free will. It can be done by anybody, anywhere and with any means. The only thing you need for it is the urge, patience, an open mind and a little bit of flamenco technique Sorry its late and i am in a pathetic mood. Its ok, i will leave it at that for now
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
Just because we have modern methods for teaching and modern transcriptions doesn't make it "high" art.
With all do respect Exitao I don't believe that your definition of what "High Art" is correct. Todays Flamenco differs greatly harmonically from the old school, it no longer possesses the simplistic qualities of folk music, thanks to players such as Paco de Lucia and Manolo Sanlucar and Gerard Nunez. Take Gerard Nunez, what about is playing is Folk, he has taken every form to a higher level. Yes TRANSCENDED every form. Bartok and Liszt have taken folk melodies and TRANSCENDED them as well.
Just because we have modern methods for teaching and modern transcriptions doesn't make it "high" art.
I agree, what makes something high art are the players who take to a new level. Not the learning process.
Just because it's "folk" doesn't mean it can't be marvellously complex.
For example?
For flamenco to transcend beyond "folk" it has to evolve beyond being what flamenco is now. And I'll be over at the other foro because at least I'll recognise the subject matter
Evolve into what exactly. If you cannot hear the difference between the playing of Montoya and Riqueni or Nino Ricardo and Nino Josele than you are right in your thinking.
On High Art
by Lawrence Nannery
It is to me an amazing fact that today the common opinion is that there is no difference between high and low art, high and low culture. The point of this paper is to reiterate the differences, and to explore reasons for the current confusion
Let's make a list of the things that characterize high art and distinguish it from low art.
1. Complexity of formal properties. 2. Complexity of the responses to the works, which sometimes have no name. 3. The fact that a full and fuller understanding of the work (either the form or the content) allows for an ever fuller enjoyment of the work. One has to gradually grow into the work. It does not reveal everything it has in one exposure. 4. The fact that a full understanding of the work can enhance an understanding of other aspects of life as well. 5. The fact that great works of high art are cross-cultural. They can be enjoyed by people of other cultures who have no other experience of the culture that generated the great work. Each great work of art is potentially a work of world art, not subject to the conditions of its composition. 6. If, according to 5, the work does not fade with distance, it is also true that it does not fade with time. 7. Works of high art are deeply related to morality, in the widest sense of the term, and sometimes problematize morality itself. 8. High art has a history, in which styles, techniques, genres and the entire orientation of the work of art is changed. Properly speaking, low art has no history. 9. Works of high art are individual. They bespeak a personality behind the work. Low art is best when it is anonymous.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
Deniz, I do recognise that buzzing is acceptable and unavoidable in flamenco. And, yes, it adds distinctive colours to the music which you could call part of the flamenco sound. The difference between players with good technique and those with lesser, is that the better players tend to buzz less, and the buzzing either compliments the music, or at least doesn't interfere with it. I thought this was elementary, I'm sorry if you think it was more complicated and was something the hinge a war-effort on.
Frankly, I just didn't bother answering that part of your post because It wasn't as important a line of thought to me as it seems to have been with you. I had bigger fish to fry and didn't expect you were looking for details to attack me with - ad hominem attacks do not qualify as arguments. Opinions don't qualify as useful for arguments either.
Look, if you have problems with the words I use, don't blame me blame the language. But please don't tell me that folk doesn't mean what it means without at least looking it up in an English dictionary. Flamenco is folk music. Those are its origins, the method of learning or transmitting this piece of culture plays a big part in what it is. So notation is part of what kind of music it is. Just as reading and writing your own language are a part of your culture and how people in the culture learn their language and that in turn informs (and even perpetuates) their place within their culture. Culture, subculture and the transmission of culture, that's all sociology 101.
I have not ignored that things change, everything does and I'm not oblivious to the fact that change is the only universal constant. However, if flamenco changed enough to not be folk, it would not be flamenco puro. If you remove large parts of it from its framework of culture and tradition, it's not folk, and it's definitely not going to be flamenco as we see it now - and the divisiveness between old and new school flamenco will be very clear with old schoolers saying that "ain't flamenco." Whatever it becomes will be just as flamenco as Jesse Cooke or Ottmar Liebert.
Falla and someone else who's name I can't recall tried to elevate flamenco music and create large works and even flamenco opera. But it wasn't, and still isn't, flamenco. Don't believe me? Try playing it at a juerga and see how it's received. (Not a criticism, but how many people here have ever even been present at a juerga? Can anyone who's been to one really try and claim that Flamenco is truly cross-cultural?)
Rain, the vast majority of people who will listen to flamenco puro, not the more appetising performances PDL and other internationally known artist put on won't be terribly receptive. They won't get it. Except for musicians, without prior experience with the culture most people won't even be able to notice that there are different palos. My Latin American friends don't even "get" flamenco. They like rumbas and catchy stuff, but cringe at canto jondo. As far as their concerned, it's almost not even the same language. So what now with a speaker of English, or Dutch or Chinese?
Go to a place with live "flamenco" and the performers actively discourage the audience from attempting to join in with the palmas. If the average person can't even clap hands in time... I don't even know (maybe someone who's travelled or perhaps Kate or Steve or someone who lives there can tell us) if your average Andalucian can do basic palmas.
Try asking a person who doesn't know anything about flamenco to listen to an alegria and then ask them if they could tell that it was supposed to be a happy song. Christ, I speak Spanish fluently and I couldn't figure that one out until I'd listened to about 50 different alegrias. I can even remember the exact song and singer(s) that made me understand that the song was happy and how alegrias were able to be happy and sad/soulful at the same time, and without the language it might have taken a whole lot longer. Classical, baroque, opera and other "high art" forms of music that are lyrical tend to have lyrics in many languages, flamenco doesn't. Let's try to translate flamenco letras to our own languages... I think I'll start with "Estoy sentenca'o a muerte..." You don't think that would sound silly in English do you?
Flamenco is not cross cultural enough to qualify under your criteria #5 and the enjoyment would be superficial, like a person who "enjoys" trailmix but only eats one kind of nut and one kind of fruit without ever delving into the bag to find out how much variety there really is. You know, the kind of person who doesn't know much about art, but knows what he enjoys...
Furthermore, for people who live in that culture, it's not complex. If it's complex to us, that because our experience with the culture is too limited. It's not our culture so we have to intellectualise it to simplify it in terms we can grasp.
Does folk connote "low" to you? Does the expression "common people" signify "low class"? When common people are the norm and are the centre of the bell curve, we need to realise that there's nothing pejorative about the folk who surround us every day. Odds are, over 90% of us in the foro are folk. And if anyone's not folk, PM me please because I need the use of your money and influence, thanks in advance.
I used classical music as an example of high art based on its history, the skill set required to compose it (i.e. education in theory), the accessibility to that skill set (the number of musically literate people has risen exponentially and yet there are so few great composers), and the skill sets required to perform it. The only thing universally accessible about it was passive enjoyment.
The folk origins of flamenco should be obvious. Anyone can learn to rap on a table. Anyone with talent could learn to dance (did you know there's even criticism from some corners about dance schools? Their product is "real" flamenco; which should be lived. Is what Sara Baras does really flamenco, or has it become some arty thing that's flamenco-esque?), and until Segovia came around, the guitar had always been a folk instrument. What's more flamenco, sitting in theatre at a Paco Pena concert, or being at a gathering, party or juerga actively participating, even if it's only palmas or table-rapping?
But let's look at your point #8, does flamenco have a history? Hmm... earliest transcriptions? Etymology of the name of the genre...? Um, was that Flemmish or land-less, or are those just sorta theories? Why, of course flamenco has history, everything does, however until only recently, like all folk art/lore, flamenco's was transmitted orally and by example. So, if I may be so bold, let's rework lemma #8 and say "High art has a recorded history..."
#9 Flamenco is supposed to be formulaic. There's a basic palo with only a few ways to play it, Yes you can individualise it was your personal style of playing, your choice of falsetas any your into, but even those follow a kind of guidelines. Because if you screw with it too much they can't sing or dance to it. And if you can't sing or dance to it, is it flamenco puro? So if a piece is high art, and individualistic, you can't have the singing and the dancing and improvisation that make flamenco a pure and living art form. See the dilemma?
This brings us back to Deniz' question
quote:
Why? Only because your definition of flamenco is about the culture and gitanos(C) doing it, instead of the music, the art?
No, not gitanos, I'm pretty sure that Andaluzia was populated with more than just Roma, but Deniz was the one who brought up Cepero, who indicated in an interview that flamenco quitarists need to get out and live it (just google: cepero interview), directly after stating that he thought modern players have technique his generation didn't have.
It's not my definition, but it's a definition I have to consider. I watch youtube videos of live social performances and the think about this compared to CDs and concerts - there's a definite basis for this definition. I haven't lived flamenco, so all I can do is learn and ask questions. No one has to participate in my question asking if they don't want.
In part, this confusion relates a bit to Diego del Gastor. Some foreigners who were interested in the music met a man who played well, but more importantly played so expressively that they understood what he was doing without needing any kind of cultural translation. That's why they made him their flamenco guru.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
This adds nothing new to the discussion. It should just make my view more clearer.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Exitao
better players tend to buzz less, and the buzzing either compliments the music, or at least doesn't interfere with it. I thought this was elementary, I'm sorry if you think it was more complicated and was something the hinge a war-effort on.
First of, my aim wasnt attacking you, but more to show, that your views are based on too little experience, or rather, that you try to generalize your current experience and views from classical guitar, and cultural understanding about "folk". According to the example with the buzzing (thats only one example): actually no, it is NOT elementary and you didnt say "buzzing compliments the music", you said more that it comes either from the set up of a guitar or from a wrong barring. And again, no, better players dont tend to buzz "less", at least thats not their aim. Thats a too simple statement because it implies "less buzz=better", which is considered true for classical guitar i guess. The only true thing for flamenco would be a statement like better players can control the buzzing better, and dose it better (not too much, not too few). If thats what you meant, ok, but above you wrote something else as a starting note on buzz.
Notation is just a means to write down music, so that you dont have to have it in mind all the time. Ideally, if its good notation, it projects the music as close as possible on/to the paper. So by definition, notation is not supposed to change the music, and therefore has no effect on "what kind of music it is". This goes for every culture. Thats not sociology, just logic.
You can learn flamenco with or without notation and/or tabs, videos, cds, in personal with a teacher... it doesnt change the music. You can compare it to a meal. You can eat it with a fork or a spoon. It doesnt change the taste of the meal. They are all means, to transport the real important thing which it is all about, namely the meal, or here: the music flamenco.
Lastly, your comment with de Falla made me laugh. Are you serious in saying that because you cant play (according to your experience again) de Falla in a Juerga, flamenco would not be "cross-cultural" (whatever you understand about that)? So all the CDs and concerts produced since the 1950s did not take place, or are you just again generalizing from one juerga experience or from the statement that only a juerga would be flamenco (did you read that in a Juan Martin book?).
And really lastly, "folk". I have not only explained the word, but also mentioned its etymological background, so, thank you for the tip with the dictionary, but i think i can handle this on my own. I tried to make clear why such a general distinction in "folk" here and "high art" there does not make much sense, but since you have reduced yourself into repeating, i will just leave it at this statement.
Posts: 14833
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
Falla and someone else who's name I can't recall tried to elevate flamenco music and create large works and even flamenco opera. But it wasn't, and still isn't, flamenco. Don't believe me? Try playing it at a juerga and see how it's received. (Not a criticism, but how many people here have ever even been present at a juerga? Can anyone who's been to one really try and claim that Flamenco is truly cross-cultural?)
Paco for one played some of Falla's melodies as "falsetas". And yes in juergas, so long as it is "in compas" like say bulerias, then it is still "flamenco". He was not the only flamenco to gleep little melodies and things from classical or popular music and stick them into their falsetas and make them "flamenco". Singers have done it too.
Depending on the mood of the juerga, yeah, flamencos will tend to embrace other musicians and try to make something happen, so long as there is compas. I can't talk about old days, but flamenco is way more international now.
quote:
and it's definitely not going to be flamenco as we see it now - and the divisiveness between old and new school flamenco will be very clear with old schoolers saying that "ain't flamenco."
In case you are not aware, that IS what is going on now, and was going on in the past. Your points are boiling down to the same old "old vs new" flamenco debate. Probably best to spell that out FIRST (where do you draw your line?) before making your argument. Because when you say "flamenco puro" it means different things to different people. The reasons for people reacting or saying what seems to be the opposite of some of your points, stems from this problem.
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Exitao)
quote:
What I hear in the modern player are cleaner, crisper played notes, both from technique and sound. Less buzz in the strings, less "buzz" in the harmonics. I think I hear a different spacing in the timing and I also hear a difference in the weight(?) applied to strokes.
How much of this is due to techniques changing, due to mixing of styles (even just among flamencos, but yes, inclusion of classical techniques)?
How much has technique changed over the last 30-50-80 years based on luthier-craft and string quality?
How much has style changed over the last 30-50-80 years based on luthier-craft and string quality?
How much has the sound of our instruments changed over the last 30-50-80 years, how much has string quality afected luthiers' techniques? How much has recording affected luthiers' goals and work? (e.g. my guitar is built on plans from circa 1951, even so, how different might this 2008 guitar be compared to a 1951 guitar, considering that mine has some composite materials in the neck to allow for the neck to be as thin as possible, the tone wood was chosen based on more modern theories or aesthetics, the bridge is likely a newer design allowing for a different angle of break in the string, and &c - will this sound "better"? will this allow for more varied techniques? how many other changes could result? sustain?)
Lord knows how many musicians have listened to their playing in recordings or on a monitor and made stylistic changes to take advantage of of sound systems...
Not to discount any of the other good points made in this thread, but noone seems to have picked up on the last idea, that of changing technology, not in the guitars, but in amplication and recording.
A friend of mine reported back to me from one of Gerardo Nuñez's classes in Sanlucar that he said to play through a PA as much as possible, and that that made the sound, so you didn't have to hit the strings so hard.
I read in an interview that Gerardo learnt a lot from playing Sabicas 33rpm LP's at 16rpm (half speed) and learning the music note by note.
I also read in an interview with Manolo Sanlucar that he spent his first months wages as a pro musician on his first tape player/recorder. For the first time musicians were able to listen back to their own playing, what a tool for feedback, composition, working on technique etc.!
It's kinda hard to imagine what the world was like without these things we now take for granted.
Sanlucar also said in same interview that up until the late sixties and early seventies, flamenco's only really listened to other flamenco's, but then they were able to hear jazz, rock, classical, latin American, Indian classical, music from all over the world, and that this influenced him a lot.
I don't know about exact dates or anything, I suspect that these innovations have contributed a lot to the development of modern toque.
Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada
RE: Diego del Gastor > Son de la ... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
In case you are not aware, that IS what is going on now, and was going on in the past. Your points are boiling down to the same old "old vs new" flamenco debate. Probably best to spell that out FIRST (where do you draw your line?) before making your argument. Because when you say "flamenco puro" it means different things to different people. The reasons for people reacting or saying what seems to be the opposite of some of your points, stems from this problem.
Well, I have personally drawn no line. I actually respect and enjoy almost all of it and if something's not to my taste it's not because of the age of the school.
However, I guess I do foresee a time when things change enough that I would draw a line in the sand. It's still a long way off.
As for PDL, adapting something into a falseta is different than playing a movement of an obra. Can we agree?
Printable Version
) where we have no hardship, poverty or Andalucians, I fail to see how I'll ever be flamenco. But at least I have mad technique to look forward to (I wish). 
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