z6 -> RE: Is It Important (Mar. 20 2014 16:05:05)
|
Ricardo, I don't disagree. But you are characterizing the 'stock' Paco impersonation. The post, that used the session guitarist doing his Paco impression, did not avail us of the standard of that performance. Of course it isn't easy, but anyone who can give a convincing Paco impersonation is entirely unhindered. Would he not be able to 'jam along' once shown how to? I'm, again, not suggesting that jamming along is all there is to it but we cannot have it both ways. It is a lifelong endeavor, for sure, and we have the professor out there showing us the dangers of actually performing Paco's stuff in front of people, but one of the beauties of the form is that one indeed does not need a phenomenal technique to do just fine. But being able to peform paco's falsettas would make the job a joy, no? We must assume that the guy did not sound like a big embarrassing mess. And if he did not, then who would claim that learning 'something else' first would be the right way to go? indeed, one the the most important aspects of this form is confidence, or belief. This guy got a chance to learn before all the wise guys burst his bubble. And how far do we go? Crisp rasgs man, but... Strong picado at 160... but what good is that? Ooh, the separation, the flow of that alzapua, but it ain't.... But if we simply assume a bunch of bum notes then of course everything else will be the only stuff that matters. Now we have people posting that are assuming certain tunes in order to further prove the underlying point that these threads often make. That it is all misunderstood, all a mystery unless one is enlightened. And of course that is the case. But we should be careful about our assumptions, and this old to new assumption does not hold. There can be no physical reason why parroting traditional stuff is superior when learning. (Given a gitano kid at one end and an old codger in Arkansas in the other.) We have a session guitarist who aped some paco and then thought he should go on a course and actually learn flamenco. If his paco stunk then the point is not even relevant as he would stink at 'basic stuff' as well. And we know he could leave out the super fast runs but still provide an authentic peformance. What Paul said sounds exactly what some people would say about Paco himself, many years ago. Ah, rumba, that's all very well but can he play flamenco? This was said many times about him. Of course, he was flamenco. As are many drenched in the culture. However, another guy here has said that IF the tunes were.... then he would be far from understanding. So what tunes would take him closer? None. He had no idea, probably, that this music was structured the way it was, and has an underlying depth that he was about to become aware of. But it's not a single ladder of enlightnment. For the guitarist there are many 'attractive things' in flamenco. Grisha can play paco well enough and he's not paco himself. And he's not a gitano. I have no idea what his level of proper flamenco is. I have only heard his recital pieces. But I'd doubt that any quality flamenco player would hear him and not know that he has the ability to master it just as well as anyone else. In fact, and this is the point, with that level of technique it will be easier for him to learn maybe how paco got there, or how others are getting to where they are. Much easier. Technique matters. If it didn't we wouldn't see so many brain-damaged comments wherein people actually seem angry at picado for being difficult. I just wanted to cut through this snobbery I see that elevates 'real' flamenco above all. But, as a guitarist, there is world inside each of paco's tunes even before we get to all the stuff that makes it flamenco, and not just 'a tune'. Now, again, there is nothing wrong with that and if we assume the session guitarist grimacing at the 'hard parts' then its all fine and good. But if we assume some level of mastery then this mastery is much more difficult to aquire than the ability to accompany, or string our little riffs together. The numbers do not lie. Whenever I've been in a room full of flamencos, all of them could keep time and seemed to know (almost all of the time) where they were and what they were doing, but a higher level of technique, as required to play paco, is very rare indeed. (Remember that here we are placing the simple ability 'to accompany' (let's say in compas but without any pretensions) against a very advanced guitar technique unaware of its own musical origins.) The basic technical toolset in such circumstances is very wide. The relaxation has to be there. The awareness (that exists within the music whether this session guy knows is aware of it or not) is there somewhere. Or it would be dreadful. The path is therefore clearer than it might otherwise have been. (If one is pursuing guitar as the medium through which one might learn flamenco.) I see here often people at pains to point out how far someone else is from 'understanding' and sometimes they use examples. I think this is a bad example. But I would rather be able to give a convincing paco impersonation than accompany some guy shouting in my ear. Had I access to a guy that would shout in my ear and point out what I need without sounding like he was putting me down then I'd probably do that, and I'd guess the session guy would as well. But if all one has acces to is 'technique' as in copying one's favourites, and if one can then pull that off, I think it is disengenuous of others to imply that the guy, or the effort, is miles and miles and miles away; especially if he played pieces that knowital fuddlebutts consider to be evidence of the hallmark of flamenco ignorance. Ricardo, consider your own musical development. Your own mastery of the genre started with music wildly different. The common element has been the guitar. One might say that strictly speaking your flamenco education started long before you knew you were a flamenco. So, that 'previous' experience cannot not inform your current state as a musician. Indeed, the very thing that attracts me to your music is the freshness, that it is 'in' flamenco but transcends the form in quite a subtle way. But pointing to the session guy as evidence of the great unattainable is about as misguided as listening to your music and then only hearing the influence of Nunez. (And this also interests me as I heard your album before I had heard any Nunez. So, for me, I sometimes hear quotations, and I love them and they show me how to 'morph' things around a littlebut others might hear something else, or have a different slant on what they hear. It all evolves and an advanced technique is the best thing one can have. Everything else is just 'doing it'. (Bad or good.) And on rebuilding and starting from scratch. I am familiar with that. One of the things I like about flamenco is I always feel like a beginner, like I just started, even though Flamenco has transformed my relationship with my instrument. Finally, as it's a lot to assume that this session guy could really play it like paco we could assume that he did it at 90% (or less) of the speed. And really finally, the guy was there at the wokshop, learning. He had no idea that as soon as one attempts to play paco to guitarists that 'know' flamenco one is written off. For my part, I'm impressed when I hear people play such stuff. I don't care what else they can do. Whatever else they can do is that, and this is this. So, how did the session guy do by the end of the course. Did he progress well?
|
|
|
|