tf10music -> RE: Do you actually understand the Cante? (Oct. 7 2020 19:36:40)
|
quote:
Ok, well I am ok with people pretending to analyze flamenco letras that are outsiders to the culture. But as I pointed out in my first post, it’s not enough to know the language, and general academic history of Spain. You have to also know the back story, or rather, the INSIDE story if you want to really understand cante. I always make my own interpretation as relates to my own USA life, however, knowing Gitanos personally I know that is only serving myself and not a true DEEPER understanding in a lot of cases. Interpreting as an outsider is fine but it must be understood that your interpretation of the words are creating their own back story, and this IMO is not good for translation to another language nor a safe way to talk about the letras to Spaniards that don’t know flamenco or any spanish speaking people. So no good for what the original post is about. Actually, this 'general academic history' that you refer to was not common knowledge at all for a long time and in many cases still isn't -- there are only one or two books (written relatively recently) that mention it, drawing on old archival records that had largely been ignored by European historians. And I don't know why you're assuming that I don't know any Gitanos personally (as it happens, I do). quote:
The main thing I am saying, sure I might WRONGLY read into the letra something about 15th century gitano culture regarding impersonating royalty from foreign lands, but in this specific case I WAS NOT GIVING MY PERSONAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETRA!!! I was giving the explanation that I was given directly from the horses mouth, ie, the Gitano cantaores that actual sing and understand the context of this stuff!!! In fact I was trying to illustrate that exact point that it is dangerous to try to interpret letras at face value. I would have either stayed confused by the letra as it stands or, invented some nonsense about some specific confused queen/gypsy girl mix up, which of course can various interpretations. The missing piece of info not contained in the letra is regarding La Boda....which suddenly explains the deeper meaning why they sing that letra all the time and why it’s relevant and has NOTHING really to do with queens and bells at all. I don't know what I have to say to make you understand that I was not doubting the primary explanation you delivered (or passed along, in this case). And I am well aware of the significance of the Boda Gitana. But again, texts sustain multiple readings, and tropes are not related to intentionality or primary explanations -- they are divorced from that level of contextual specificity, having been abstracted into generalized symbols. The presence of the trope does not at all undermine the contextual ground of La Boda as the primary intentional vehicle of the text. I don't know why any member of an expressive culture would be concerned about where a trope like that might have come from, since it would have nothing to do with what the text is trying to say. And it's important to respect that mindset. But assuming that every bit of expression and every image emerges 100% intentionally is kind of silly -- there isn't a single literary or oral tradition in which that is the case. So why not trace the historical origins of a given trope? Recognizing that the trope of the Gitano/a erroneously presented as royalty has a deep origin doesn't undermine the primary explanation, which is, as you say, La Boda (I'm sure you know more about the specific details of that than I do), and it allows us to simultaneously recognize the letra as a reification of various registers of cultural and historical memory. But alright, I get that you want to be literal-minded, and that the first explanation that should be mentioned is the primary one -- and it was, since it was the one that was offered first, by you!
|
|
|
|