Ricardo -> RE: Great Grand Daddy of Flamenco (Mar. 2 2023 13:17:29)
|
quote:
Sanz, Passacalle por la E is just one example. Thanks. Again, the reason for the Fandango focus was about “rasgueado vs punteado” conceptually. Ocón is a great under emphasized source because a lot of our flamenco basics are in there, yet it is underemphasized as “possibly not proper-flamenco, yet is shown because it is in-a-proto-transitionary state of being, so i can make my conclusion that Silverio invents what we think of as flamenco otherwise I have to account for this Ocon junk”, type of evidence. You said he (or me quoting the book) had it “backwards” as a concept regarding rasgueado and punteado, implying that “fandango” (probably not the same thing as what I want to think of as fandango but ok), already has the rasgueado and punteado going on in Baroque era, much earlier than we are supposed to infer the time frame Ocon is discussing. There are some Mexican and Peruvian examples on the previous page that have the 6/8 feel mixing 3/4 accents against that general feel. I am not talking about THAT if that is what you might mean. I mean like Seguidillas Manchegas type of Off set chord moves from the pulse. quote:
Soledad is fact. It existed before the solea. The word. Not the FORMAL STRUCTURE. Buendia points out a classical piece for strings called Soledad in the major key, referencing gypsies. Meaning, a classical musician wrote a piece referencing gypsies, and called it “Soledad” VERY LIKELY BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING CALLED THAT, or it was a person’s name, or something, who knows. When the word appears in newspapers in the 1850’s, it is not clear which Soledad is referred to because obviously in 1856 you have Planeta (a known flamenco singer as per oral tradition and blood lineage, like it or not), and Ocon showing a DIFFERENT SOLEDAD. Buendia wastes a lot of ink pointing out the other pieces that rip off Ocon’s melody, etc. But at the same time misses the forest that Ocon shows solea proper in every way I can explain as a professional artist. That to me is fact, but I can’t seem to get past interpretation. To me here is the basic math…Ocon does NOT EQUAL the OTHER classical piece called Soledad. There is not other musical piece to confuse, or claim as a transition piece or music, so therefore no reason to point to “surface similarity” to jaleo or whatever, diverting the issue towards some OTHER music that will “Later become” what we know as solea. This coupled by the basic fact that even well into the 1900s and today palo form names get swapped all the time except by very nerdy aficionados that try to keep it all well labeled, points to a situation that the “solea” was simply not called THAT in the time of Estebañez Calderon, OR, he simply missed it and doesn’t talk about it (doubtful once you understand flamenco properly from my perspective and the central importance the form has). A third math fact is that Solea is huge and Caña/Polo is very very small in comparison as a genre of cante, yet they share the same compas? That should explain a lot, but I guess it does not for people. What it means is, it does not make musical sense that Caña came first and Solea derives from it later on. Seated in the Ocon book next to each other is not coincidental, nor that the entire section of pieces has a relationship as what we today know as the the genre of flamenco. Seguidilla Sevillana and Contrabandista (Garcia Lorca either created Anda Jaleo from that or learned it from people that did) could loosely fit in with those, and Zapateado too, but in the same way we practically think of the separation today. The only thing not terribly relevant is all the polo Tirana stuff in the book. Felix Maximo Lopez fandango copla fits in with what Ocon shows, and I believe Arcas or Aguado has the fandango copla as well, however we don’t even need that because they are not showing flamenco guitar stuff. All this points to “it existed”. And by “it” I mean the formal basis structure of the enormous branch of cante called fandango copla. 1800 LATEST. Estebañez Calderon also admits it is old stuff they are preserving (old music IN 1838), which implies Caña/polo and with them the Soleá whatever it was called. Could have been Romance even. quote:
You know Gamboa and Castro Buendia, and Nunez and many others started as flamencos. Here, i don’t want to be rude. All respect to them, and all seem like very nice humble guys (unlike me the exact opposite LOL). I played side by side with Gamboa in Gerardo’s classes/juergas. Late nights, hours and hours. He would not be comfortable in the professional shows I have done. Castro buendia, I don’t know, I saw him play a classical piece on YouTube. I see his scores and read his words. I like him, but am confused otherwise and therefore, by some of his interpretations. Nuñez sings and plays in his lectures. That should basically tell his level. They are free to explain things and put things forward as they see it. I can’t say how deep is their understanding in the same way as when I am on stage or in rehearsal with artists, and their levels are clearly demonstrated and in your face. I basically have their words to go on and my own subjective experience of which to contextualize whatever they claim. The thing the Solers did/do, this guy Chavez that made the book with Norman, and Norman of course, they know their stuff and a profoundly deep way beyond my practical knowledge, and I therefore learn from them. However when they put forward a claim, I don’t notice any problems either, and trust me I am on the look out. For example in Chaves cante mineros, once my ear is oriented to a certain style I read the label for this other cante and hear it and go “hey, That is the same Cartagenera thing!”…but sure enough in the text he points out this exact thing. So, some guys involved that don’t use music really know what is going on. I extend this same expectation to the three guys up there, and I don’t always see the same rigor in their text. Unfortunately, The solers are not able to review Ocon etc., as they don’t use scores. Fandango is blues? Ok, if you say so, I can’t read music. quote:
Your ideas are not even being peer reviewed except here, which is an unfair arena because most people put you on a pedestal. All I ever do is argue on here! [:D][:D] Few people ever blindly agree with almost anything I have put forward that is a little “different” than the typical view. quote:
Music and musicology are disciplines, flamenco would be a focus or field which could be treated to musical or musicological study. You mean academics. I mean guitar genres in practical terms. Different genres of music have their own system for learning or operating and terminology. I have always been clear about this. A field is a wide open grass area where animals graze. It only relates to flamenco if the animal is a bull. Focus is when you visually zero in on something. None of that has to do with translating terminology for the same basic operation between two genres. quote:
If you have time, check out the partimento guys. I have. I don’t see how it is different, other than terminology and rules, bottom up instead of top down, Improvisation vs composition, etc, from Franco-Flemish polyphony or other ecclesiastical part writing music. Maybe if you briefly bullet point the differences then I might see how it is relevant that I can translate one into guitar chords easily, and NOT the other, and then why that is relevant to spain and flamenco.
|
|
|
|