Ricardo -> RE: Why are guitarists such snobs? (a profoundly negative post :-) ) (Feb. 2 2009 7:48:56)
|
Sorry, this was off topic, and dont' want to beat the dead horse about, so just this last post from me about it, promise. Especially for anyone reading thinking "what the hell is Ricardo on about anyway?" LOL quote:
seems to set up a false and unnecessary choice between reading and speculating about flamenco history, and just doing flamenco. Why not do both? The one is not the enemy of the other. Not really. I was saying the way it is FOR ME specifically, and I admit it can be different for others. My point is it can be redundant to investigate verbal histories, of something you already KNOW by being able to do it yourself. It is not they are enemies, but it is sort of redundant. Nothing wrong with it, but one is WAY more important to do than the other, is the point. quote:
Isn't the most complete and aware artist the one who has some knowledge about the history of his/her art? Not necessarily. For me, again just ME, the artist that can express what ever he knows, and does it well, is better. Example would be Mairena vs Caracol. Again that is just me, and my tastes. quote:
we have a fairly rich recorded history of what flamenco actually sounded like, again as before no arguement there. I consider listening as "active" part of learning and doing flamenco, vs reading what someone might say ABOUT the recording. quote:
It might call into question whether a lot of what is being performed and played now is actually flamenco. This has nothing to do with whether what's being done now is good or bad; it's about whether it's really flamenco. If you look at some other flamenco forums, you'll see that new people entering what they believe to be the world of flamenco, believe it to be the world of the Gypsy Kings, rumbas, castanets, and guitar hypertechnique. These newcomers love this new world of "flamenco", and more power to them, but is it really flamenco? Again, it MIGHT be flamenco actually. Depends on specifics, and as I said lots before, we each draw our own individual lines about it based on personal experience, knowledge and taste. People who know history of flamenco but can't do palmas for example, tend to have different lines drawn than I do. At least so I gather talking to them. Others who seem to have similar tastes and ideas as myself, tend to have some demonstrable abilities doing the art itself. Again I point the quote of Mclaughlin regarding being confronted by our own inadequacies. Right there becomes the point of either snobbery or humbleness depending on the type of student we are. quote:
Nobody--NOBODY--can be hurt by reading about and listening to the music that was called flamenco for the last century or so, and doing so may actually make people better (or at least better informed) artists. Listening again is always good, but I can only speak for myself when I admit reading about flamenco set up certain miss conceptions early on. It really depends on WHO is writting about it, but how will you know before hand? Point is, many miss conceptions and questions and concersn that one might have about such an artform can last for years, and getting cleared up in MOMENTS, by actually interacting in the environment itself. Has happend so many times to myself and others I know, for me to take a different view at this point. Sure I have read some good stuff too, but again, already KNOWING about it I find myself in agreement. Ok poor dead horse, I am gonna step of this one for now. Ricardo
|
|
|
|