Ricardo -> RE: Flamenco Theory/Structure books (Sep. 11 2023 19:09:43)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: orsonw quote:
Most (all?) of cante jondo flamenco is in phrygian tonality/key, some other palos are in major or minor tonality, and the whole corpus of [guitar playing in] flamenco shows that all possible notes are used, thus, flamenco [guitar ]overall utilizes the chromatic scale. Yet a lot of flamenco is in Phrygian tonality/key. That's what I currently understand, and as shown in your excellent Flamenco circle of 5th. Where from a western view the iii (phygian) is the key/resolution not the i. As far as I understand, western music contracted to major and minor but there are others e.g. phrygian. I include my little map that helps me interpret circle of 5th sections. I mainly use my ears, I am ignorant about theory. But I try to learn something to follow some of the erudite discussions, and it has helped me in learning to actually play and be better at listening/accompanying cante. E.g. Atypically Norman Kliman website convention calls the iii the 1 and refers from there when describing cante e.g. por arriba note E is 1 and he refers note intervals from there, names chords II-I (F-E por arriba) not iv iii. More discussion here including Kitarist's useful pdf http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=332688&appid=&p=&mpage=2&key=flamenco%2Ccircle&tmode=&smode=&s=#332907 I felt I should update you guys a little, that I have revised my thinking a bit regarding these topics and those arguments linked. Most of my thought processes of clarification were based on Baroque era practices, namely I noted Fischer (who inspired Bach’s well tempered clavier) created sets of preludes and fugues in major and minor keys, and one lonely Phrygian example. Noticing Bach did away with any such thing, or rather, Phrygian music ideas become part of the basic DOMINANT FUNCTION of the minor keys, I felt that the expanded circle of 5th most succinctly elucidates how flamenco thinking is alike but also different to western classical thinking. Please note that your 6 Roman numerals (all lowercase) represent scale degrees (or chord roots) of the MAJOR scale or key only. The relative minor necessarily shifts Roman numeral “I” from, say, C to A when it comes to defining the relative MINOR key that shares the same sharps and flats position on the circle. With this in mind your “iii phrygian” is not really the way western music theory students are taught to think, rather, the same position chord is viewed as “V phrygian” because your vi has become the “i” of the minor key. Because the third is raised, the extra term “Dominant”, normally saved for V in major keys, is necessarily applied. So you end up with “V phrygian Dominant”. Most western classical minds travel no further, and as needed, would apply the concept of “secondary dominants” as needed. By this I mean your “iii phrygian”, if it appears as a cadence point in a Major key piece, it is not described as “iii” or even “III Major”, but rather, in context, as “V/vi”….meaning “the V dominant of vi”….regardless if it actually moves to vi or not in the next phrase. These devices can be used to tonicize any of your other Roman numerals in the key, or modulate more permanently to an entire new key, perhaps requiring a “Turning of the wheel”. With that in mind seeing you can have I of major key =III of minor, or vi of major=i of minor, my enhanced version introduces Phrygian as a new level where iii (major)=V (minor)= I (Phrygian or “flamenco”), as a third key tonic. TONIC as a concept for Roman numeral “I” or “i” is essential for either functioning keys, OR modes. People like Norman and other flamencologists have already made this “leap” without special justification, and matter of factly apply “I” to Phrygian tonic palos. Even talking about Fandango this is done in the literature, again, a leap un-justified without explanation such as my circle plus the enhancement for Phrygian. You note that all the mixed Makkam/scales in the above linked article I was criticizing, all have E as the number 1 or root note, ie tonic. That is why I said you could add E Locrian to the mix….when in reality my point is we should not be doing this AT ALL for flamenco anyway. The reason is because all the accidentals you see relative to E tonic as if tensions heard as static or modal, is absolutely NOT how flamenco functions. We don’t run all those scales over an E chord….the accidentals appear as necessary with OTHER chords derived in the “Key”, and hence my push for “key” vs mode or scalar thinking. Now what I have revised since that is that I realize both Bach and Fischer come from an older school of thought from the Renaissance, where you actually did have things like “Phrygian keys” and even more exotic things. They were done very differently so we have an unfair divide between the two genres, as if ZERO over lap happened. Truth is the “duel Tonicity” of Steelhead articles, and Flamenco’s “phrygian” cadential phrases (Clausula of the renaissance modes 3 and 4), are likely stubborn and persistent hangers-on from those times, that have been preserved like fossils. There where 4 modes based on D, E, F, and G, and due to musica ficta and its vague practice of application of accidentals to a “mode” via taste, rules, and training, you end up with a vague mixture of “keys” based on those notes as FINALS (rather than tonics necessarily), where D is not only dorian as it allows Bb to appear in equal amount as B naturals, C#s etc. F “lydian”, same deal, mode 5 can use B or Bb, Eb can appear, etc. So those are modes 1,3,5,7. What happens is the tessiture of the main melody might cover wider ground BELOW the final, confusing what Tonic actually should be. These are plagal modes (hypo-blabla) 2,4,6,8. So the “Dual Tonicity” that has survived is really things like pieces composed originally as mode 4 (Hypo Phrygian), or mode 8 (hypo mixolydian) for example, where you can’t for sure say what key it is in, because it sounds to modern ears like it ended on the “wrong chord”, Like Guantanamera, when actually, that was a basic rule for the piece as it was written and harmonized in those days. So simply put, I feel that the confusion with something like flamenco or bluesy rock, Guantanamera, etc, that we STILL see being argued in modern times where responses to “what key is this in?” with “just use your ears dude”, is going to continue unless people acknowledge the likely Renaissance origins, and persistent survival of these forms THROUGH the baroque/classical music periods, co-existing with them, in more “folk” style traditions that weren’t studied academically the same way. Whether or not the original theory language of the Renaissance should be employed to explain things like “Hey Joe” (Aeolian clausula with Picardy third, repeat over and over) is open to debate, but for me at least, it clears up A LOT of stuff and makes things more cut and dry.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|