|
Adam -> RE: Flamenco + Metal = FLAMETAL (Aug. 5 2009 10:03:24)
|
quote:
The thing that irks me about purism is how far back do you need to go before it's acceptable to listen to? It's much like how the Amish refuse to accept technological advancements, but still use things like the wheel, which was at one point a technological advancement.
But there's a flip side to that, no? Flamencos ("purist" or otherwise) should be irked when some hack like Armik or Benise advertises their music as flamenco, or when one's friend says "oh, you play flamenco? Check out my Gipsy Kings CD, they're the best at flamenco!" There is a point at which innovation is too much - at which music might be fine (I, for one, have always loved Ottmar Liebert), but it can't be called flamenco, because it has strayed too far from the boundaries of that tradition. These purism arguments aren't too say what's "acceptable" to listen to or what's "very enjoyable", it's to say what's flamenco - and when you have a tradition worth preserving, that is very, very valuable.
So where's the line? It's fuzzy, for sure, but we can generally apply the metric that any changes to a tradition must be gradual, and working wholly within that tradition. If Armik releases a CD eliminating cante, palos, palmas, and compás in one fell swoop, leaving only vaguely Spanish-sounding guitar, I think we can safely say there has been no gradual change within the context of flamenco. Paco, on the other hand, was a huge innovator and very "progressive"*, but still stayed true to the majority of the fundamental tenets of flamenco. He worked within flamenco.
*I dislike using the word progressive here, though. Was flamenco post-Paco really an improvement over flamenco pre-Paco? Was flamenco actually progressing, or just changing?
</thread-drift>
|
|
|
|
