NormanKliman -> RE: Norman Kliman (Feb. 8 2008 22:53:43)
|
Hi Romerito, >Wondering what your feelings are on Mairena. Thanks for your message and for giving me an opportunity to express myself on the subject. You may regret having asked me, though. [:D] I tried to make this a short response, but I've been at it for about three hours this morning, and it's pretty long. I don't want to sound authoritative on the subject. I might know a little more about him than others, but it's all about art and is therefore subjective. So if anyone disagrees or has something to add, please do so. In my opinion, Mairena was an extraordinary aficionado. He learned directly from Joaquín el de La Paula, Manuel Torre, Niña de los Peines, Tío Parrilla and many others. Flamenco was his religion, as it is for many of you who are reading this, but the difference is that he used his knowledge, talent and money (he won the lottery twice) to change the course of development of the art form. He was the right guy in the right place at the right time. (Don't worry, I'll get to his less favorable aspects in a minute.) In addition to his efforts to consolidate and promote flamenco, he was also an excellent singer. Of course, it's a matter of personal preference, but I feel that a number of his recordings are among the best in their respective categories. For example, some of his better soleás include the substyles of Paquirri 3 (Personas que están queriendo), Mellizo 1 (Como no puedo vengarme), Pinea (Esta casa huele a gloria), Machango (Son los cuatro puntalitos) and Juaniquí 2 (Cuando en la calle te encuentro), in addition to his many recordings of the Alcalá styles. It also seems that he came up with several of his own creations (Jerez and Triana). Remember, we're talking about substyles from five different regions, and if we take into account his cantes in other styles like siguiriyas, tonás, romances, bulerías por soleá and even cantiñas, the result is a considerable number of seminal recordings. Today's singers almost always refer to Mairena at one point or another when interpreting siguiriyas, tonás and romances. It's also worth noting his careful selection of the hundreds of different letras that he knew, many of which he found in collections of coplas published nearly 100 years earlier. However, as I mentioned to Ricardo in another thread, one has to know how to distinguir. Not all of Mairena's recordings are so outstanding (and none should ever be considered definitive models). For example, his soleá of Paquirri 1 (A la orillita de un río) pales in comparison to Aurelio's (A rebato toquen). In that case, it sounds to me like Mairena gave it his best shot, in order to add another substyle to his recorded repertoire, but it just doesn't do it for me. Many of his recordings are a little stilted (lacking in "adventure," as a friend of mine says), and they say that when Mairena was in recording studios he was chiefly concerned with recording a "textbook" version for posterity (hence the qualification of "cold" you hear so often about him). This might very well have been the case, as we can deduce from some of his live recordings in peñas and festivales. He didn't master all singing styles, either, and I'd look to other singers to learn about Levante, for example. He recorded many different substyles of bulerías, but I'd much rather listen to other singers in that style. For listening pleasure (his voice), I only like some of his recordings up to the early 1970s. All of this is perfectly understandable, because nobody can sing every style exceptionally well all the time in all circumstances and throughout their entire artistic career. But you really have to know how to distinguir when you read some of the comments in his otherwise excellent book "Las confesiones..." Some are outright racist and others practically incoherent, like the whole bit about Razón Incorpórea and how it appeared before him at a gypsy wedding. This isn't all that important to me. I've got my reasons, and this text is already w-a-y too long, but let's just say that anyone who'd believe that and feel foolish afterward gets what he deserves. Mairena's singing is the only thing that really matters. He felt that he had a job to do, for his people and for his art form, and he expressed his opinions accordingly. Personally, I feel that flamenco is much better off today thanks to the job he did. A fundamentalist approach really wouldn't make sense today. There are several reasons why I feel that way, but the most important of them is that Mairena achieved what he'd set out to do. Consolidation is part of development. >others see him as someone who recreated cantes for the sake >of preservation without really knowing some of them How can we determine how well he knew them? Like I said, his version of Paquirri 1 strikes me as a bit contrived, and the few Levante styles he recorded aren't very good. But I think you're referring to some of his unfounded attributions, like El Fillo, Paco La Luz 2, Noriega, etc. Mairena's interest in learning from old aficionados is well known. He was perhaps the best "archaeologist" of cante of all time, due to his skill and his circumstances. In the other book I mentioned (Antonio Mairena en el mundo de la siguiriya y la soleá), the authors Luis and Ramón Soler analyzed over 2,000 recordings of siguiriyas and soleás recorded by singers born up to 1920. Most of what Mairena sang can be found on those recordings. As for the rest... Like I said, he felt that he had a job to do, and he felt that part of that was to attribute as much as possible to his people. How can we really know what siguiriyas El Nitri sang, let alone those of El Fillo? In a number of Mairena's recordings, it seems pretty clear that he added his own ideas, although he never attributed even one cante to himself. He was very good at developing cantes, and he had a lot of information at his disposal. I feel that the mere existence of his creations and their solvency are far more important than any questions regarding their authenticity. I don't really care that much about the accuracy of the attributions, I'm just glad that he recorded those cantes. In my opinion, singers have always tried to do things their own way, just like we do with falsetas. You make something your own out of necessity and preference. I think that things have always been that way in flamenco, except for the years in which Mairena's influence was strong. Some conclusion, huh? [:D] >Can you explain the variation in Buleria Corta "Yo quisiera..." Pavon, >and "El sitio donde..." I just don't hear much of a difference. At least >not one that couldn't be chalked up to interpretation and not an actual >separate melody. Yeah, they're practically identical, differing only in the way he holds on to the IV degree (D por medio without capo) throughout the first line (in the substyle attributed to Tomás Pavón). I agree that it's splitting hairs, and I haven't really figured out what to do yet in that regard, because I think that the attributions could be streamlined. I used nearly all the nomenclature set forth by the Solers (this one appears in the liner notes of the Tomás Pavón CD put out by the Junta de Andalucía), and sometimes they might go a little too far. For example, I didn't classify Tomás' "Válgame Dios y no le temes" as a separate Alacalá substyle. However, the more substyles we establish, the richer the analysis. But then again, if we were to take into account all kinds of different variations (Marchena, Camarón, Morente, Pansequito, etc.), the result would be overwhelming. In an effort to simplify things a bit, I used a larger font at the top of the soleá and siguiriya pages for the more frequently sung substyles. Well, thanks again for asking. I hope this leads to an interesting exchange among a number of forum members. If it's felt that it'd be more appropriate to handle this privately, I'd be happy to discuss the subject with anyone who's interested.
|
|
|
|