Ricardo -> RE: **Learning CANTE together** (Jul. 4 2018 17:54:48)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kitarist Thank you Lenny and Ricardo. [EDIT: posted before seeing Ricardo's latest just above] Probably a very stupid question, but when people are referring to particular letra classification, like "frijones 1", what characteristics are assumed to be referred to? Is it the whole package of (1) the particular words within a line (or the number of syllables?), (2) the way the lines are arranged, (3) the repetitions, (4) the harmonic progression within that, and the (5) pitch and (6) duration sequences for syllables within each line? Or one or more but not all these characteristics? In other words, is the fully-defined "building block" a single line of particular words (or the number of syllables?), and the way they are sequenced (including repetitions)? Or is the way they are sung (the pitch and duration sequence for the syllables within each line of words) also assumed defined? Or is it that the harmonic progression is assumed defined, but the sequence of syllable pitches/duration can vary somewhat as long is it stays within that harmonic progression? Mostly number 5...pitch or “pitches” that correspond to the melody. There is some rhythm tied to those pitches that together result in the phrasing, and I have argued that the rhythm is a sort of “free interpretation”, or USED to be, not unlike fandangos or cantes Libre set over top of some underlying compas, though some disagree with me. Norman often refers to “melodic arcs” to compare the melodies....I of course would prefer if we just think of an actual transcribed and written melody line. There is an implication that there is a sort of bare bones skeleton of each style melody, however in reality no such thing exists as what we have are various interpretions. These interpretations clearly follow a blue print sketch of a melodic line, but it’s impossible to know what the original was that all the variants derive from. Beyond that all your other points are all factors too, but more often add it up to confusion IMO. A good example is compare Joaquin 1 to Serneta 1. Considered different styles, different people, different region, different delivery, and even melodic details (serneta reaches up to the 6th degree and Joaquin supposedly does not go above the 4th). To me as musician both of these melodies clearly derive from the SAME EXACT parent melody, it’s as if Joaquin is a tired drunk guy’s attempt at serneta 1 but could not reach the notes...so you have to distinguish somehow. If a singer delivers the first line like Joaquin 1...then repeats like Serneta 1 would, then what do you call it??? Also the “ay ay” is supposed to be in the cambio of serneta but not Joaquin, but what if it’s not done? Well some would say it’s just bad taste to do that, or the singer doesn’t know or care...but I would say its the type of freedom the singer actually has. It seems the more details an interpretation contains, the more important a figure that cantaor is. But mixing of styles has become common practice. Of course knowing the details does not have to take away the enjoyment from a performance, I have to admit after learning what’s going on I am not as impressed with certain singers, and more impressed by others, than when I was casually listening to cante in the beginning.
|
|
|
|