Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
What IS the purpose of a flamenca negra?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
RobJe
Posts: 731
Joined: Dec. 16 2006
From: UK
|
 RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to GuitarVlog)
|
|
|
Here’s a suggestion – the flamenca negra has no clear purpose.
When indigenous Spanish Cypress was cheap and easy to obtain it was the default wood during the development of the modern flamenco guitar from Torres onwards. It was no use making flamenco guitars from more expensive imported hardwoods as flamenco artists didn’t have the money to buy them. A rosewood guitar was a posh guitar – it had more elaborate binding and inlays.
In the late 1950s or possibly earlier, a few luthiers experimented with making flamenco guitars from rosewood – who knows why? This proved attractive to a small number of guitarists – for example, the son of Perico el del Lunar (Pedro del Valle Castro) who played with his famous father in the tablao Zambra in Madrid was playing a rosewood flamenco in the early 1960s. Nobody seemed to think that this was a great breakthrough – perhaps it was just a “toys for boys”.
The big change came when Paco de Lucia started to play his famous Conde negra. Then everyone wanted one. All kinds of stories exists about the negra being better for a solo guitarist in a concert hall – this is probably not the real reason for the popularity of the negra – there is a lot of post event justification that goes on. I suspect that one of the Conde brothers just shoved a negra into Paco’s hands (or more likely the hands of his brother Ramon) and asked what he thought. It just happened to be a great guitar irrespective of the wood.
Mariano and Faustino who made Paco’s negra, specialised in flamenco guitars (a good thing!). Whatever wood they used (cypress, rosewood, expensive, cheap) they made guitars with the characteristics that flamenco guitarists wanted. They weren’t diverted by any signification parallel production of classical guitars to cloud their thinking and intuitive processing. They produced guitars that felt right – the most important issue for a flamenco guitar. Rosewood, maple, cypress and other hardwoods probably colour the sound of the guitar, but as Anders has hinted, you could use cypress to make a good classical guitar as well as using rosewood to produce a good flamenco guitar.
There remains one great mystery. Why are there more bad negras than bad blancas?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 3:35:58
 |
|
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to GuitarVlog)
|
|
|
Whenever, while playing my Negra, I am epiphany-stricken and can pinpoint exactly the lyrical sound, sustain, separation of voices or volume which I am certain my Blanca wouldn’t have… my Blanca proves me wrong. Then the cycle starts again whenever I am playing my Blanca.
Fortunately, my Blanca and Negra are form different luthiers, or one could conclude sadly that I have two of the same guitar, just different shades of wood color.
However, a Negra is NOT a classical guitar with a lower action and clear plastic pick guards. I tried that at the very outset. The experiment was sufficiently pleasing for the initial approach to Flamenco. Later, when I finally acquired a proper flamenco guitar, I realized what I was missing.
I love the sound of a Flamenca be it Negra or Blanca.
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 16:35:25
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
quote:
However, a Negra is NOT a classical guitar with a lower action and clear plastic pick guards. I tried that at the very outset. The experiment was sufficiently pleasing for the initial approach to Flamenco. Later, when I finally acquired a proper flamenco guitar, I realized what I was missing.
I love the sound of a Flamenca be it Negra or Blanca.
Exactly! I totally agree, GJ Michelob. Those who call a flamenca negra a "hybrid," or "crossover," implying that it lies somewhere between a classical and a flamenca do not understand that the wood itself does not make a flamenca or a classical. Rather, it is the way it is made, the bracing, the set-up, etc. As you so correctly point out, anyone who thinks a negra is just a classical with lower action and golpeadors is simply wrong.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 16:49:41
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
I have an unpopular theory about Segovia and Hauser so I may as well say that too.
I get the impression that Segovia needed to have a guitar made by a man from the middle Europe area of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms to lend credulity to what up to that time was the Iberian identified guitar. The old Europe had a social conditioning predisposed to thinking the "classical music" in it's most highly legitimized forms came from Germany and Austria. The late romantic era of which Segovia is a product in terms of interpretation was an extension of the music of the Germans. Wagner, et al. So I have an inkling that Segovia whether consciously or unconsciously felt some type of internalized pull that he should in order to be fully vetted as a Classical Musican ( stress on capitol CM) that he needed people to identify something of him with the homeland of the German masters of composition.
So enter Hauser the guy from middle Europe who took several years to reinvent what Manuel Ramirez had already done. Why could Segovia not have gone to Santos and sad can you do this for me.....and explained X,Wand Z that he wanted? Or why did Segovia not go to Austria and select several Stauffer style guitars and bring them back to Santos to study, deconstruct and them and ask Santos incorporate the qualities inherent in them that he liked?
It's pretty well been established that art forms that originated on the Iberian Peninsula were historically never given the same weight by Europe at large until relatively recent times. This is easy to discuss if you find a scholar of Spanish literature, music, visual art or philosophy willing to spend a few minutes explain why there were social biases and geographical separations that kept Spanish art from moving more rapidly into middle Europe.
A Segovia's early time was still permeated with an anti Spanish intellectual bias; which to Segovia credit he fought by commissioning works by excellent Spanish composers. The unfortunate consequence of that is that those composers were fairly conservative, although moderately influenced by contemporary French music. Which ain't all bad.
Segovia dissed the roots of his source material however by trying to separate himself to far from the flamencos. The odd thing is the granddaddy of modern Spanish "nationalist" (loose term) was Pedro Pedrell the teacher of Manuel de Falla and others. Pedrell advocated the use opf flamenco and all Spanish folk music as primary source material for the composition of a Spanish heritage music. De falla in turn passed that philosophy on to the next two generations who were to become Segovia's composers. Ironic no?
I learned of this interesting twist because my old girlfriend Vismaya Lhi, who is a fine bel canto soprano and scholar, studied with the late Joaquin Nin Cumell, brother of Anais Nin. Nin Culmell lived the last several decades of his life in Oakland CA where I now live, and he taught composition at University of California Berkeley. Joaquin was the last student of Manuel de Falla and my old girlfriend was the last student of Joaquin Nin Culmell. She premiered one of his sets of songs and recodred them with a major concert artist guitarist/composer. Lucky for me I was able to receive the information that Joaquin told Vismaya about the artistic circles of the 1920's and 30's in Madrid and Paris.
What he said was that distinctions Segovia drew between musical art forms were not the only attitude prevalent in that that day. he said it was not uncommon to find top flamenco artists associating with opera singers and writers at parties. There did not exist this mystical separation between those who were professional flamenco singers etc and the rest of the artist community. In his opinion was people like Lorca who wanted to manufacture a noble primitive type to hold up as an example of the pure gypsy. Not to say there were not plenty of poor gypsies who had a hard lot in life. But his point was that some flamenocs were recognized as pros and there was was a distinction between an artist like La Nina de Los Peines and some fellow who sang in the fields who was ok but not so great.
So whatever.....you should check out Nin Culmell's music
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 18:22:50
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
From a luthiers point of view he was one of the snakiest guitarists of all time. He took Santos' guitar to Hauser and Hauser copied it and then Segovia treated Hauser like he invented the guitar. Segovia left Santos out in the cold.
Not to be nitpicking but the guitar in question is a Manuel Ramirez, built by Santos who was an employee. That changes things a bit, for one thing it was no skin of his nose that the guitar was given to Segovia and it is unlikely that he was given complete free reign in the design etc... Santos supposedly asked Segovia's permission to remove the Ramirez label and insert his own, which is pretty ballsy to say the least. Segovia refused so Santos stuck his own label in under the Ramirez label, when he repaired the guitar.
Second Hauser was introduced to Segovia and was given access to the Ramirez guitar. It still took him well over 10 years, if I recall correctly, to build the guitar that Segovia deemed the "greatest guitar of our epoch". I think they met in the early 20's and the guitar in the Met is from '37. Santos was peeved about Segovia's admiration for Hauser and took it out on Segovia. He built a guitar and held onto it allowing anyone to come and play it, except Segovia. It is impossible to say whether or not Segovia would have accepted the Santos, but I think it's safe to say if he found it to be the superior instrument, he would have used it.
Your theory about Hauser is interesting. but I think it's a bit far fetched to think that some kind of musical legitimacy was Segovia's main reason for wanting a guitar from a non Spanish maker. I think he, like all great musicians, played the guitar that inspired him the most. He certainly moved around when it came to guitars, over the course of his career.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 19:07:28
|
|
gshaviv
Posts: 272
Joined: Mar. 22 2005
From: Israel
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
quote:
I find my own Bernal blanca has a more "immediate", "tense" and "highly strung" sound in comparison to my Ander's negra which has more depth and a balanced, richer sound, while still having a short sustain.
I like them both and it's good to switch between them depending on my mood.
I second that. I have an Aaron Green Negra and an Antonio Picado Blanca. They sound different and it's nice to switch based on the mood, or just to make a change. I find myself playing a lot one guitar and once I feel like a change, I will play the other for some time.
That said, my Green has better playability, but that's not related to blanca vs. negra, just to Aaron doing a better job.
My wife's a pianist, and she has 3 pianos (if you count the electrical ones), so I'm still at a deficit with my two guitars...
_____________________________
Guy
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 24 2010 21:15:05
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
|
RE: What IS the purpose of a flamenc... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
Aaron I understand that "official" story, but that was told from Segovia's admiring biographers side. It's the same old story every time.
I understand your point but overall I don't see how this information is sympathetic to Segovia or why anyone would prefer to take his side over Santos' since they are both long gone. There are plenty of stories out there that make Segovia the bad guy, I just don't see this being one of them.
Fact: the guitar in question was made in the workshop of Manuel Ramirez who employed (and paid) Santos Hernandez. It was Ramirez' decision to give this instrument to Segovia. If Santos had free reign to build what he wanted using the designs he wanted and paid the bills...... then it would be a Santos, but Ramirez was the maestro of that shop.
Fact: Santos wanted to remove the label and Segovia said no. Which was the correct decision as far as I'm concerned. Santos then put in his own label anyways, without removing the Ramirez label. According to Richard Brune,(who I wouldn't call a biased Segovia sympathizer) this is the only guitar where Santos used his label and wrote that he had repaired the guitar.
Fact: Segovia met Hauser and showed him the Ramirez and it took many years for Segovia to acquire one that he felt was worthy. I've heard he borrowed one prior to that but it appears he was more faithful to the Ramirez. According to the Brune article on the Hauser, he has in his possession two concert programs, one from late 37 which stated the guitar was Ramirez, and one from early 38 stating guitar by Hauser. So in his search for legitimacy I think he just stuck to playing, transcribing music, commissioning composers.... and taking out the competition, ie other guitarists like Ramon Montoya, Barrios etc...
The story about La Inedita (which I believe is the name of the Santos guitar that Segovia couldn't play) seems to say a lot about Santos, but then it also says a lot about Segovia. Segovia knew he had offended Santos and whether or not he was in the right or Santos was being a jerk, if the relationship meant anything to him he might have tried to make amends. Perhaps this story seems snotty and counterproductive to Santos rather than Segovia but then in the end we hear a lot more about Segovia's ego than we do Santos.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 25 2010 5:04:03
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
