Ricardo -> RE: Rodrigo de Zayas (Mar. 9 2023 18:08:23)
|
Interesting thanks. Cuervas could be a connection, though she was in Barcelona, I think it would have to be via Sevilla, and or Habichuela, who records with the same people as Montoya. I guess Montoya could have encountered the situation in Sevilla…but I am not clear when she connects to Pujol, where she would have to first learn about it. quote:
Here's a piece by Norberto Torres on Montoya's Rondeña, with a little more meat to it. So a lot of wasted ink on the Murciano/Arcas/Borrull completely unrelated connections via the WORD “Rondeña”. That issue is what started my deep dive into flamencology after all. The main conclusion is this : “We suspect that someone would transmit the old tuning [vihuela] to Montoya, someone who made transcriptions of the vihuela and lute pieces for modern guitar, for which reason surely a classical guitarist, and that Montoya would complete the new tuning by lowering the 6th….the fact he uses the capo at 3…is not a coincidence…” Ok, so the authors here are missing some important pieces, though this is the same logic I am starting from. First, the capo is not a big deal as the relationships in flamenco are never about absolute pitches….that is in fact the point of the capo…to preserve the CONCEPTUAL KEY, not achieve an absolute pitch. Further, the famous keyboard tablature devised by Luis Venegas also includes harp and VIHUELA (not lute based on the picture he drew of a guitar looking thing), where the absolute pitches indeed are meant to be conceptually the same as the GUITAR TODAY relative to a modern keyboard. I am not sure if historians truly grasp the significance of that translation. What it means to me….regardless of the pitch class your instrument is tuned at, lets say by physical design or string tension etc, that is totally BESIDE THE POINT of how you are supposed to perceive the instrument. The Bermudo reinforces this concept when he asks vihuela players to conceive of mentally, or DRAW ON PAPER, 7 vihuelas at different pitches. (Basically exactly what we do as flamenco players by using the capo instead of using 7 flamenco guitars, although I do have that many!![:D][:D][:D]) So the big thing missed is that the author does not get into WHO that classical guitarist might be. Nor the extremely important thing that I found (two pieces by Narvaez, Fantasia de Octavo tono and Baxo de Contrapunto), which is a literal basis of the tonality (ie. The form totally separate from the cante accompaniment using Abandolao as the early part of the paper explains). So a basis of the FORMAL STRUCTURE, not just the broad level tuning. Montoya would have to have been shown the tonality along with the tuning to invent the rest, not just tuning, because it is strange. The Narvaez is equally “strange” in context (of 7 to 9 Publications that don’t use the same?), hence, more than coincidental IMO. So the picture in my mind is a “classical guitarist playing Narvaez”. It has to be that specific or no dice. The author next talks specifics of Montoya’s piece and others, however, they miss the fact Montoya uses it for cante (Salmeron 1928) which puts constraints on the timeline, and they try to equate rumored de la Caleta erroneously as an influence, without acknowledging the cante melody of Levantica. So since that was written, I feel we have a lot more specifics to look at. For example if Pujol did not know Narvaez, etc., that would be a problem to rule out. The thing is I also want to entertain the idea that the tonalities supposedly invented by Montoya (Rondeña, Taranta, Minera), were not more than developments of tonalities already existing in the oral tradition, simply un corroborated by musicians that understand the distinction and not recorded for cante only for practical reasons, until Montoya.
|
|
|
|