Ricardo -> RE: Flamenco--A Modest Proposal (Jan. 5 2009 6:48:38)
|
Just to be clear I would not say that to define something as "flamenco" you need the artist, and likewise, I would not say ANYTHING a true flamenco artist does is flamenco. For example, in Rito y Geografia Chocolate demoed some spanish pop tune, with a different voice, to show he liked other music and could sing other ways. But that is not flamenco for sure. Now if you have an orchestra play the melody of solea, the cante i mean, say Solea de Alcala, well, even though those are not flamenco artists playing it, the melody is what it is. It IS a Solea, and solea IS flamenco. You have an orchestra interpreting flamenco, pretty clear. About other palos, like I said earlier, I put Villancico and Rumba in a different category than other flamenco palos, but that is just me. I think when you have song forms that are done by NONE flamenco artists, they dont' necessarily need to be defined as flamenco, just because most flamenco's interpret them. Like Sevillanas also, we had that debate before. I always try to put it in perspective for folks with the example of jazz and blues. Every jazz musician knows and plays the blues. But the blues, as a song form, is not necessarily jazz music. Blues players are not jazz musicians necessarily. Same deal with many forms interpreted by flamenco artists, including rumba sevillanas, even fandango. So blues is clear. But what makes a jazz artist "jazz"? Well, you have to know the standards and play them in a jazz way. There are many styles of interpretation, but when you play a jazz standard, thats it you are playing jazz. Likewise, there are no interpretors of TRUE and good solea, siguiryas, or bulerias, that are not flamencos (an orchestra would not be a true interpretor in other words). Beyond that, taste and understanding will draw the line for each individual. Ricardo
|
|
|
|