Sight more important than sound? (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - Sight more important than sound?: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=240111



Message

Turron -> Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 15:53:05)

This article says that looking cool when you play can be more important than the sounds you make. Not really true in flamenco. I tested it by watching 'Paco Shreds' with the sound off then with it on. Myth busted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23717228http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23717228



SLJ -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 16:12:48)

probably , unfortunately true. Ive watched a guy on YT with long hair beads and bangles, doing wild strums, golpes etc. and had a huge crowd. When even in my limited exp. it seemed like what he was playing was nothing near as technical,,, as guys on this site play.

its the old Steve Stevens vs Jeff Watson thing. Jeff just played amazingly. Stevens was good but flashtastic[:D]



flamencositar -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 16:42:23)

Makes sense sight is "more" important, we are visual creatures.....



Ricardo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 17:34:43)

For the general idiot sheep public sure. [8|]



Kalo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 17:37:38)

The audience doesn't care how long a musician has worked/practiced to get to a certain level of playing.

All they care about is image, stage presence, and being entertained [:D]

Esteban is a GREAT example of a being a medicore guitarist!

He played at the Gainey Ranch here in Scottsdale for MANY years!

The audience thought he was a MONSTER flamenco guitarist!!!

I am not disrepecting him!

I am just saying his image and fakemenco playing won the audience over EVERYTIME [:D]

Kalo



tijeretamiel -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 17:42:30)

Seriously sight/image isn't important in flamenco?

The flamenco guitarist with gaudy gold chains, balding head with a combover and a mullet sitting on his shoulders.

I can safely say this is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

(a joke, I do fear that image is more important than it should be)



Richard Jernigan -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 18:19:27)

I watched "God's Fiddler" the other night, a documentary about the most revolutionary violinist of the 20th century, Jascha Heifetz. He was the reigning virtuoso of the century. He showed little effort when playing, and his facial expression was deadpan. He was often criticized as a "cold" performer by professional music critics.

But in the video, time after time, other violin virtuosi such as Yitzhak Perlman, Ida Haendel and Ruggiero Ricci used words like "burning passion", "fire, just fire," "incendiary playing."

I heard Heifetz on record long before I saw him perform. He always struck me as the embodiment of both passion and precision.

I often close my eyes at concerts.

RNJ



gerundino63 -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 18:28:19)

quote:

, and his facial expression was deadpan


A good old friend from me who studied flamenco guitar long ago in Spain with Mario Escudero always say that he was told not to show expression with the face or body. The expression supposed to go trought the guitar only.....



Leñador -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 19:26:36)

The general public are not musicians and have no real way to judge a musicians talent so this is what they go to.

This is why Justin Timberlake is so much more famous then Tomatito.

Kinda sad but then again do I really want to talk about the intricacies of Diego del Morao's playing with everyone I come across?

Let the dumb masses have their dumb music, this way too I know to avoid you when I hear 50 cent blasting out of your car.



Kalo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 19:51:11)

quote:

Let the dumb masses have their dumb music, this way too I know to avoid you when I hear 50 cent blasting out of your car.


[:D][:D][:D]



Turron -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:00:19)

Did anyone here know Pedro Bacan? He grunted vocally along with the music when he played. Some musicians do that. Glenn Gould did it in the recording studio and drove his sound engineers nuts as they tried to subtract his vocalisations from the recordings.



Mark2 -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:02:22)

I have to disagree,
Timberlake is more famous because more people like his music than Tomatito's. Not that Timberlake's music is better, it's just more enjoyable to more people.

And I think it's also true that there are guy's who are better at pop music and better singers than him but will never make a dime because they aren't young and good looking.

I also disagree about the general public not knowing great musicianship when they hear it. Some do, some don't IMO.

Performing musicians are entertainers. Some people like J.Lo, some like Paco. It's also not impossible to like both.

I used to play for an older female dancer, and she was pretty skilled. A friend of mine got a gig and he hired a younger dancer who was extremely attractive. His friends, who were not afficianados, ended up seeing both dancers on different nights and told my buddy how much more they liked the younger one.

I thought at the time how lame that was. But years later, I realized that their thinking was maybe not as screwy as I had thought. In terms of entertainment value, perhaps the incredibly beautiful girl , who moved well, had some serious appeal even though her footwork was not in the same class as the other dancer. Not being flamencos, maybe they couldn't tell exactly how much more experience and technique the older lady had, or if they could, it was not enough to offset the difference in looks. I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid? Or simply honest in what they found entertaining?

I'll talk Diego del Morao with anyone, but there's few who I know that are interested.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lenador

The general public are not musicians and have no real way to judge a musicians talent so this is what they go to.

This is why Justin Timberlake is so much more famous then Tomatito.

Kinda sad but then again do I really want to talk about the intricacies of Diego del Morao's playing with everyone I come across?

Let the dumb masses have their dumb music, this way too I know to avoid you when I hear 50 cent blasting out of your car.



Leñador -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:03:28)

quote:

Did anyone here know Pedro Bacan?
.

My teacher studied and played with him a Spain, I'll have to ask him about that lol [:D]



Leñador -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:06:00)

quote:

I have to disagree,
Timberlake is more famous because more people like his music than Tomatito's. Not that Timberlake's music is better, it's just more enjoyable to more people.

And I think it's also true that there are guy's who are better at pop music and better singers than him but will never make a dime because they aren't young and good looking.



Ummmmm, I don't feel like you're disagreeing with me.............

quote:

Does that make them stupid? Or simply honest in what they found entertaining?


Being entertaining and being skilled at something are two different things. If they were judging her skill as a dancer and thought she was better, then they're wrong if they were judging whether or not she was more entertaining then they were right. Just because someone is more entertaining does not make them a better dancer/musician.

If the entire goal is to be entertaining maybe we should just hire models to dance around naked and comedians to tell jokes while we play with fire rather then spending countless hours studying music hardly anyone likes...............



Mark2 -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:11:59)

I guess I disagree that the general public has no way to judge a musician's talent.
When people listen to Bird, Jimi, Paco, etc. I think most know there's serious talent there. Not everyone, but plenty.



aeolus -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 20:43:34)

Aw...pobre flamencos. No one understands their intricate art. Reminds me of George Benson a while back, came to Philly for a gig and was interviewed by the local paper and interest in jazz having crashed he had turned to a singing career and he asked the interviewer not to mention he was a jazz guitarist. If you are in the entertainment business you gotta entertain. Don't blame the audience.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 20 2013 23:10:50)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan

But in the video, time after time, other violin virtuosi such as Yitzhak Perlman, Ida Haendel and Ruggiero Ricci used words like "burning passion", "fire, just fire," "incendiary playing."

RNJ


Now Richard you are going to think that I am trying to trick you into reading the Guardian but in fact I was just too lazy to find the original New York times post.

With the general public expectation is everything. Here is an abbreviated discussion about Joshua Bells experience of busking. I was shocked that the reporter and Bell were surprised when he fell flat. I thought it would have been a certainty.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2007/apr/18/joshuabellnoordinarybusker

Today on Radio 4 I heard what was supposed to be an indepth discussion about music. What I heard was a rather inarticulate young man talking about the terrible cod poetry he had set to hackneyed chord progressions. The interviewer had no knowledge of or genuine emotional attachment to music. This is the level of debate we have learned to accept.

Try and actually discuss the quality of a performance critically and you are likely to be met with confusion and hostility. Cloth eared afficianados have their sacred cow's and woe betide you if offer criticism. They will inevitably cite allegedly unimpeachable credentials rather than actually demonstrating an understanding of your point or providing a cogent answer of their own devising.

I am familiar with the Heifetz documenatary and in fact the spin off archival mish mash of the same interviews which deals with other Violinists from the first half of the twentieth century who are well represented in film. I think it was called The Great Violinists after the book of the same name.

Whilst I have never ever heard any string player of any accomplishment or insight seriously questions Heifetz' command of his instrument it is actually quite rare to hear him commended as a musician. But if someone came to your home and told you that they were making a film called 'God's Fiddler' you might put to side the snidier comments that would pepper you discussion in an honest moment with a fellow professional. Comments like overly romantic, emotionally uninvolved, dictatorial, inflexible, indifferent to harmony, more concerned with showing off than illustrating the composers intent, using every trick at every opportunity.....

But for all that he remains perhaps the most technically accomplished violinist of the recorded age and this mastery alone often imbues his performances with energy and panache whether he has brought any affection or respect to the music or not.

And maybe if the same celebrated artist fresh from his gushing interview on Heifets or Enescu or Ysaye or (good lord help me) Menuhin saw Joshua Bell in the tube they might rather quickly move on. Maybe momentarily challenged but comforting themselves with the thought that although his Chaconne was commendably neat he, after all, was only a talented student.

Whereas when I saw Bell in Glagsow playing The Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in 1998 I just thought, 'he wants me to know that he can play more than he wants to share this piece with me' and 'Leonidas Kavakos' did this better last year.

So maybe Mr Bell was having a bad night or maybe philistinism RUNS DEEP.

Whether it is the sight of a beautiful dancer or a gushing review by a literature graduate in the Washington Post(maybe even a Yale man) or the recommendation of an artist/pundit or the fact that the guitar has a golpeador or not there is more to this sight before sound business than meats the ear.

D.



FlamencoD -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 21 2013 10:45:47)

I think I can agree with this. I played lead guitar in a cover band for about 7 years, and we sounded much better in person at 12am, than listening back at the recordings later! It has a lot to do with our frontman's stage presence and the chemsitry we all developed together more than anything else. People like to see musicians having fun, and the crowd definitely enjoys it more when we were having fun.



Ricardo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 21 2013 13:22:21)

quote:

I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid?


If they honestly thought the older woman was less skilled then HELL yes they are stupid. lets say ignorant. no never mind stupid is better. dumb moronic idiots. And superficial.

No before I yell "educate yourselves in ALL things..." I will say it is perfectly fine to LIKE the hot dancer more, or sucky singer etc, for whatever reason. But you are not allowed to say she is a more skilled artist if she is not. Why people always confuse that I don't get.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 21 2013 14:10:56)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

Why people always confuse that I don't get.



Oh well that's crystal clear now[8D]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

D.[&o]



Marlies Jansen -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 21 2013 15:00:38)

Pedro Bacán grunted and looked as if he was solving a difficult math problem, Diego del Gastor was always smiling and so was Moraíto, Parrilla de Jerez put his cheek on his guitar as if they were lovers, Vicente Amigo has a tendency to look up during a difficult passage as if he is expecting help from above, you can't see Tomatito's expression because his hair is in the way... what difference does it make? There are people who love a good show and who will always pay attention to the outward appearance. They like to be dazzled by golden trumpets and diamond studded pianos. Good for them. Then there are music lovers, who judge by what they hear. Probably the majority of this forum's members will belong to the second category.

Flamenco caterers for both categories. Both the touristy, showy flamenco as the more sober - some will say 'purer' - flamenco have their own performers and audience. And then there is the rare artist that will enchant both kinds of audiences. Nothing wrong with that. Well, at least that is how I see it.



flamencositar -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 21 2013 18:53:13)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid?


If they honestly thought the older woman was less skilled then HELL yes they are stupid. lets say ignorant. no never mind stupid is better. dumb moronic idiots. And superficial.

No before I yell "educate yourselves in ALL things..." I will say it is perfectly fine to LIKE the hot dancer more, or sucky singer etc, for whatever reason. But you are not allowed to say she is a more skilled artist if she is not. Why people always confuse that I don't get.



I have witnessed what you are describing at a Paco Pena concert. First male dancer is doing some whack ballet/flamenco dance thing. It was about as pure as poo water. 2nd dancer was much more about the proper dance. Ballet boy got a standing O, with me and my wife sitting on our buts going wtf is everyone is excited about. 2nd dancer, el puro, got 2 people standing O from my wife and I. The rest of the audience looked at us as if either crack heads or knew something they didn't.

PS: Hot chick doing wrong and jacked up flamenco TRUMPS old woman doing correct flameco. [:'(]



Marlies Jansen -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 6:39:20)

quote:

PS: Hot chick doing wrong and jacked up flamenco TRUMPS old woman doing correct flameco.


Flamencositar, that hot chick may arouse you - and maybe that is all you are after - but that old woman can move you. Or to put it more bluntly: the chick may stir up things in your crutch, but the old woman is able to stir up your soul.
And I wouldn't use the word 'correct' flamenco, but 'true' flamenco, based on authentic feeling. I once interviewed dancer Farruquito and asked him if it bothered him that the audience always wants him to be spectacular. He told me that what he was looking for when dancing was the truth. And if he hadn't found it on stage, he had to keep on dancing in the dressing room.

For me there is a distinction between flamenco as a showcase of excellence (look at my fast footwork, listen to my dazzling picados, my endless melismas) and flamenco as a means of expressing and transmitting true emotions. The older I get the more I get interested in the latter one.



Tomas -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 14:00:30)

I wish I could remember their names - but I so rarely do - but a few years ago I attended a performance of a group that included three dancers at the Museo del Sacromonte in Granada. Two of them were in their twenties, they were very good, technically brilliant, I absolutely couldn't fault them in any way.

But when the lady who looked like she could've been their grandmother did her part of the performance, she just captivated the audience completely. Just the way she walked onto the stage was already enough, really.



sig -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 14:56:39)

Man, I love that Paco Shreds video, I swear I never laughed harder!! I think some of the appeal of pop vs classical music generally is that pop music is visually its more stimulating that listening to classical. It takes more effort to engage with classical music where as pop, rock, country, blues etc... hits the average person at a raw emotional level. I guess that could be said for flamenco and that's how I feel when I hear a Bulerias or a Solea. I don't think its a matter of good or bad in any genres of music, if it moves you to me at least, its good...
Sig--



Tomas -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 15:28:42)

The raw, emotional level is not entirely unimportant in classical music either.




flamencositar -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 15:29:05)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marlies Jansen

quote:

PS: Hot chick doing wrong and jacked up flamenco TRUMPS old woman doing correct flameco.


Flamencositar, that hot chick may arouse you - and maybe that is all you are after - but that old woman can move you. Or to put it more bluntly: the chick may stir up things in your crutch, but the old woman is able to stir up your soul.
And I wouldn't use the word 'correct' flamenco, but 'true' flamenco, based on authentic feeling. I once interviewed dancer Farruquito and asked him if it bothered him that the audience always wants him to be spectacular. He told me that what he was looking for when dancing was the truth. And if he hadn't found it on stage, he had to keep on dancing in the dressing room.

For me there is a distinction between flamenco as a showcase of excellence (look at my fast footwork, listen to my dazzling picados, my endless melismas) and flamenco as a means of expressing and transmitting true emotions. The older I get the more I get interested in the latter one.


And there is nothing wrong with your perspective, but it's only one. We all SEE and appreciate the same thing differently. You like old ragged prune skinned women, I like the young ones that are vapid and have no talent in life other than being hot.

And if it still fails upon you that I am joking with the hot chick comment, read what I wrote above my hot chick comment. We agree.

I just don't get bent out of shape because the average joe with a mild interest in any art form does not seem to get "it." Actually I prefer it that way, for I am not a believer in mass consumption of flamenco or art in general. I like it in a niche, so it doesn't get the Mcdonald treatment, where it has to be homognized for mass consumption, bland and boring like cardboard.

Cheers mate.

Cheers mate.
[:)][:)]



Mark2 -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 16:10:17)

I'm not entirely sure what they based their preference on, but I'm thinking it was not "She clearly has more interesting footwork, better arms, and sharper compas."

But would you agree that footwork and great technique in general doesn't always win the day over artists who manage to express themselves in flamenco without as much raw technique? Guys like Farruco could take over a room just by striking a pose. I'm not saying that he didn't also have the chops.

If you agree with that point, then it becomes more complicated to determine who is the "more skilled" artist. Is the more skilled artist the one with the best technique or the most profound expression?

A single movement, or a perfectly placed note, can create an emotional response in an audience that trumps better technique.

As an example, Jeff Beck vs. Malmsteen

I personally would not consider Malmsteen to be more skilled than Beck. I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid?


If they honestly thought the older woman was less skilled then HELL yes they are stupid. lets say ignorant. no never mind stupid is better. dumb moronic idiots. And superficial.

No before I yell "educate yourselves in ALL things..." I will say it is perfectly fine to LIKE the hot dancer more, or sucky singer etc, for whatever reason. But you are not allowed to say she is a more skilled artist if she is not. Why people always confuse that I don't get.



Kalo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 17:55:59)

quote:

I personally would not consider Malmsteen to be more skilled than Beck. I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.


NOT ME [:D]

I played plenty of rock/shred...All that Malmsteen stuff is pre patterned Arps. that if one has the patience just needs to sit down for 6 months and practice SLOW and will be shredding in no time..

Jeff Beck, well that is a whole other story...Were talking about note selection and feel...

But that is just me as well [:D]

Kalo



Ricardo -> RE: Sight more important than sound? (Aug. 22 2013 19:00:42)

quote:

A single movement, or a perfectly placed note, can create an emotional response in an audience that trumps better technique.


You should probably know me by now, I don't prescribe to the bogus "feel vs chops" critique.

To examine your description, I consider a "movement" and "perfectly placed note"...directly related to TECHNIQUE and TIMING. As to your other statement, I feel that the person with the BETTER COMPAS is always clearly the more advanced performer. I for one see right through the charismatic "expressive" artist that is trying to cover their limitations with certain shiny objects. Farruco's 'pose" is all technical, to the point it is a natural expression. Try to copy or do better and you confront your own technical limitations, plain and simple. Carpeta a perfect example. What could that baby possibly know about life love and pain such that he can express so well with dance better than anyone of us???

People confuse speed and flash with "technique". Malmsteen is fast and sometimes very expressive, yet he rushes the compas all the time to the point it is annoying. Perhaps to unschooled listeners it sounds either like "too many notes" or is simply amazing. Beck always controls the time in a way it feels like he has more knowledge and technique and schooling. Malmsteen sounds un schooled and crazy at times, even when he (and especially when) he attempts to interpret Bach or Paganini... always hap hazard and rushing tempo. Speed is not always technique...but controlling rhythm is.

People talk about Moraito music as if it is "easier" or requires LESS technique than others. Ok then please reproduce it? Moraito has a technique and control up there with the rest of the maestros, with an added dimension to it in certain aspects of "soniquete" expression. It is not simply that he is from jerez and "feels" it a certain way, but more importantly that he has a physical and technical ABILITY to produce that "sound" which was many years in the making. Many many hours of repeating the same phrasing until it is natural as speaking or walking. THAT is high technique IMO. People who play music and make it somehow SOUND difficult to play rather than natural and flowing, are actually LACKING in technique skills, yet inevitably get labeled as "technical players".

Ricardo



Page: [1] 2    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET