|
tanolonco -> RE: Scandalous Poll (Mar. 29 2004 14:50:14)
|
Miguel (and i guess others): With all the hoopla and barbs about puro and non puro, I think you and I fell into the trap inherent with typologies--what defines each classification? When one looks into the world of biological typologies, concepts such as phylum, genus, species, etc. are used and each typology has very concrete and measureable characteristics.
In the world of music, no one has defined what is puro and what is non-puro. Even within the concept of flamenco, there are no hard and fast rules--for example one person posted rumba being played in the phyrigian scale is flamenco. The phyrigian scale is often referred to as the church scale and a lot of old church music is in this scale, yet, few would argue the old church music is similiar to say a bulerias. Someone else posted tremelo as a defining characteristic.
I think to end this diatribe, and maybe to set guidelines for the future--guidelines not as a result of fiat, or the fear of having cyber beer tossed around, rather, guidelines set by using good scientific and logic principles. When I said puro, I broke good scientific principles. Puro has not been defined with concrete words that are measureable (hence valid). However, using specific performers is measureable. So, what I should have said is: Music in the style of Sabicas, Nino, and those of that generation. Likewise, those taking the "non-puro" and/or neuvo side, fell in the same trap when they did not identify the characteristics that define those "styles". So here goes as an idea:
In future discussions about what is puro and what is non-puro, these words should be replaced with words that are concrete and have measureable characteristics. Rather than say "puro" one should, following good scientific and logic principles, use more specific and measureable words such as: "in the style of" or "music performed in period X (say 1950's to 1960's as an example). We as members should ask the user of such words to be more concrete.
For example: When I said "puro" someone should have called me to task and said: "Tanolonco, how do you define 'puro'?" It would have then been on my shoulders to clarify my meaning.
Of course, we do have to accept that someone may define something very clearly yet still be adamant about their position--that is another issue, but if a person takes that postion, and is civil about it we do need to accept it .
So, Miguel and others, does this seem to have merit?
|
|
|
|
