|
Ricardo -> RE: Phrygian Fetish music? (May 24 2024 19:57:06)
|
quote:
That's not how culture works. But your scenario makes sense if you don't take the "flemish" thing literally. Steingress makes the best case I have seen to date about why flamencos are called flamencos and how that was not synonymous with gitano. And he also clears up, based on critiques that Schuchardt made of Demofilo's work, the language issues.
My bar scene is meant to show how ridiculous the concept is. It absolutely doesn’t make sense to me to be honest. If such a fusion happened that way, then why the sudden “purists” attempts to preserve the bastard child of several genres? You have to explain the strict adherence to the formal structures and adversion to variants that go “off the rails” of the tradition, and what that intuition is based on exactly? In otherwords, aficionados can’t always put the finger on it but they KNOW some cante or guitar playing is not right when they experience it. It is more than “ironic” if it were the case that this music form developed as loose and easy going fusion of elements, then suddenly it takes decades to master and build this intuition about.
Those German guys I read a couple times, as you brought it up before. I still don’t get it, or I have lost clarity regarding their conjectures. It did not impress me whatever it was but I feel bad I don’t have it in my head anymore.
quote:
No one has ever argued in the entire history of flamenco that Arabs, or Berbers, or Moors invented flamenco.
On the contrary, that is pretty much what Solitario is assuming, and he ponders aloud how could it be that in all of Spain the Andalusians have preserved these medieval forms. I will dig up the quotes so we can discuss it more concretely if you want. I feel it is opinions like his, and others subsequently, that by the time Castro Buendia tackles it, he has no option to ignore it as it is such a pervasive thought, reinforced again and again, especially by people that can’t operate within the art form but even by some that do.
When we start peeling away the layers “ok we see nothing being done today that is the basis, but there are elements…” and we get into “such as?”, and that is where we are now. Castro says none that are clear and obvious. You claim you see some so we can eventually discuss them.
quote:
Rather, the point is that there are elements of Arabic music that directly influenced flamenco
So that is the thing you are holding on to. Some things to think about in that regard, don’t have to answer yet:
1.DIRECTLY influenced when exactly? Hopefully before the earliest recordings. And keep in mind “directly” might require “direct evidence” vs circumstantial evidence.
2.Who might have been involved? What is the personal connection between musicians that occurred? Even if it is a conjecture it needs to be thought through. Example “these guys are known to have been working in the same mine at the same time…” that type of thing.
3. How deep are these elements? If one were to remove them totally, does the music stop functioning convincingly to the main artists and aficionados?
4. Do these elements affect specific palos only? Which ones and to what degrees?
quote:
This in Spain. They are Spanish gitanos? Do you speak Calo fluently or well enough that you can distinguish it from Romani?
So, the answer is “no” to Spain, however the gypsies I just worked with have the same type of general traditions that the ones I have dealt with that DON’T have the language this well (that I have been exposed to anyway), and my friends from Spain, all share in common. No I don’t speak, and as I just said Borrow’s book seemed helpful. Now, I need to ask if you have read Borrows book??? He makes it clear there is only one gypsy language called “Cale” and goes through the variations in detail. He also admits some in Spain (Sevilla regions is named, which would of course be our flamenco artists) have lost it in a big way, or using corrupted versions. He seems proud to admit the language he speaks with them is Universal all over Europe and Asia that he has traveled. It is whatever that is, that seems to be what my local friends are using, as I checked a couple words in Borrows dictionary that checked out. Now, Borrows goes on and on about the ‘crabbed gitano” called “Germania” or the thieves language that is confused for and used by Spaniards and gypsies alike. Other than that I have no reference for what is the difference there, Calo vs Romani.
quote:
Ok, we are saying similar things then. Although, I would push back by saying that there is no such thing as an ethnic voice, "x" voice, voice of the "X" people. The voz Afilla has been pushed as the ultimate flamenco voice
Right, it is technique that none the less might get picked up by a group such that you can see a collective tendency. Even Planeta is arguing with mr. Fillo about this technique via Solitario I have been discussing. It would make sense to me that if there is an Arabic vocal technique at work, vs Indian etc, then we can talk about it generally if it used in flamenco singing…however, I am noticing a general gypsy vocal technique that is lots of different music via an technique that is learned via imitation. To a western ear that could be a similar technique to the Arab one, is all I am saying, even though it is specifically 3 different things (at least).
quote:
No, I have not gone that far back because I think that flamenco emerged in a form we might actually consider flamenco in the later 19th century. The metaphor I use is biological. Flamenco was "Conceived in the early nineteenth century and was birthed in the Latter nineteenth.
Well, biology is very much based on evolution. And paleontology has relied on fossils that have HUGE gaps in the timeline. Luckily there is genetics that help corroborate sometimes. On the one hand it is fair to not jump to conclusions until all lineage has been constructed. On the other, it is a huge disservice to point to only the GAPS in the fossil record as a reason to give up looking further back for clues. It would make sense, to me anyway, to try to do BOTH at the same time. That next stepping stone could be hiding somewhere no one thought to look.
quote:
I will say, I don't agree with Castro Buendia and others who claim that the tercet preceded the quatrain in flamenco. Although the tercet was common before Cervantes, I think the jondo forms were really born of the quatrain. That is another argument for another time.
If we ever agree upon what I have found, your instincts are correct. Further, the concept of classification (Joaquin de Paula 1,2,3) as an orthodox “sequence” is relevant to what i am seeing historically. Meaning there is a reason to do the musical form of quatrain before the transitional tercet, and to end with the macho.
Sorry this is out of order:
quote:
What is the difference between scale and mode to you?
Scale is a sequence of notes, could be a basis of a musical system or tuning system, etc. A mode is a “discipline specific key center or melodic sequence”, ie, a huge loaded term with tons of contradictory baggage if you want to equate two different genres. Example “double harmonic major” is NOT tuned like the hijazkar so only loosely analogous to pitch intervals, however, not ever to be used the same way. The “scale” thing can be used to improvise or create new melodies up down however, where as the Makkam equivalent is more like a functional phrase or falseta type thing, based on traditional practice and preordained set melodies. Hence removed from the discipline should not be talked about as equivalent for fault of being misleading. Raga is an other loaded term that should not be removed from its discipline. Safer to simply admit, “no it is neither THAT scale, nor THAT Makam” whatever they might be.
quote:
Hmm...I don't disagree. But what are the original melodies?
Theory is the use of symbolic systems to describe and explain some phenomenon, in this case music. When I say "built" I am only trying to convey what the underlying system might be.
Never said “original” I said “SET” melodies, that don’t change very much. The work of the Solers and others that have classified cantes in various ways are excellent objective methods of defining your question. If we can’t agree on what is a cante, then we have no melody to discuss, and one is free to claim it a raga or hijaz or minor scale, random improvisation, etc. Cante is none of those things, it is specific melodies first and foremost that could be sung to one syllable “la” if you want but hold their clear identity to those that know them.
Then to describe the rest of the structure you have specific preordained chords, not scales, that function to punctuate lines of verse and are just as specific as the melodies. I would accept that chords are also scales or vocal lines coming together vertically, but collectively they don’t spell a single scale or two. Together these define the formal structures musically, and accept various poetry to apply, also looking to be somewhat set in stone, however, can be interchanged with the set melodies and chords at will (improvised in loose terms, like falsetas are improvised in performance). Lines of verse can be cleverly delivered in various ways that affect the overall structure, but do not affect or change the specific melodic lines and punctuation.
If you wanted to ignore all that and be more fundamental about it, instead of “scale”, you could say “it is all based on those white keys on the piano….plus the black ones sometimes”.
|
|
|
|
