Munin -> RE: flamenco vs nuevo flamenco (Aug. 12 2012 17:47:30)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH There is a difference between nuevo flamenco and fakemenco. Nuevo flamenco is still considered to be flamenco. Although one might debate whether one prefers nuevo or traditional flamenco (I much prefer the more traditional), nuevo still has characteristics that define it as flamenco. Although I didn't like the bass and harmonica evident in Paco de Lucia's latest tour, and it didn't appeal to me as flamenco, I still recognized that it is flamenco with the boundaries pushed beyond my taste. I did like the concert as good music; I just didn't like it as flamenco. Fakemenco, on the other hand, is clearly not flamenco but is passed off as flamenco. If I remember correctly, Ottmar Liebert had an album that was listed as flamenco. Ottmar Liebert does not play flamenco, and, in my opinion, is an example of fakemenco, since he passed his playing off as flamenco. Another example that is sometimes passed off as flamenco is the group The Gypsy Kings. Now, the Gypsy Kings play very good music. I like it a lot. But one of their concerts in Washington, DC was advertised as featuring "fiery flamenco songs such as Bamboleo." Bamboleo??? If they had not made the claim that Bamboleo was an example of "fiery flamenco" they would have been fine, in my book. By making such a claim, they passed into the realm of fakemenco. Cheers, Bill The word "nuevo flamenco" isn't to be understood literally, I think people here mean it as the self-descriptive marketing term seemingly popular in the US that guys like Ottmar etc. use (basically the very thing you describe in your second paragraph). So no, "nuevo flamenco" doesn't equal "modern flamenco" for most people.
|
|
|
|