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.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Mike_Kinny)
Dear Mike,
I have much to share with you regarding this subject, since I have already published all of this type of information in a book on Mel Bay referenced above, anyone interested my refer to it rather than for me to post such extensive (and copyrighted) information here.
It should be available at most University libraries, and can be found in most music stores in the Flamenco section.
I would be pleased to send you a copy. PM me with your address.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Rain)
i am really enjoying this thread. music aside for a moment (which is almost as long as i ever let myself stop thinking about it) i really enjoy reading. and years ago i picked up a few theory books, and realised that i like reading that more than novels and stories
so threads like this are great for me, i love reading all the knowledge, even if some of it does go over my head. it doesnt have any negative impact on my playing that i am aware of at this time, and is a good way to take a break from actual practice
In this book you will learn that all music (western-flamenco included) can be boiled down to the same thing. Tonic-Dominant-Tonic (sometimes there's also a subdominant).
Of course there's no mention of RHYTHM, and that's a problem with all the theory books I've seen...
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to El Kiko)
Well, this conversation is well over my head.
All I can say is that there are many artists in many genres who have composed great tunes and lasting music without ever having studied even the rudiments of music theory.
Maybe if Hendrix had studied music theory then he wouldn't have come up with his ideas as they would have been "wrong" to the perceived convention of that age.
As for Paco de Lucia....jeez...he had to drop out of school at 13 or something.
So he was able to read, write and count and pretty much didn't have a lot of "music theory" study at his school in Algeciras...
In my experience anyway, Western society in particular has a great need to explain and document things in retrospect in order to make some sense of the universe.
That's why we have "experts" who explain in great detail why the stock market rallied or collapsed the day after it happened and why any fool could have seen it coming.
Or sports commentators, who can tell you exactly why the horse came in second, or why the football team won or lost... after the results are in of course.
Or musical critics and analysts who will explain in great detail exactly how a great piece of music worked, whilst being unable to do it themselves.
Music theory will certainly be essential if you want to work as a musical arranger and are required to produce parts for pre-written tunes for other instruments etc.
But for musical originality or inspiration?
Nah! I'm not convinced it's of any use at all, especially in Flamenco.
Posts: 2697
Joined: Jun. 7 2010
From: The South Ireland
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
@romerito .. When many flamenco players in spain talk about Dorico ( dorian ) the mode they refer to is actually Phygian, the typical mode , I came across this problem in Spain before, why are they calling the third mode by the second modes name ... the result is due history .... the modes we used today are the ecclesiastical modes that were universaly named by the Pope of that time ..... so we had the same name for each mode in all countries , but Spain never changed .. not the flamenco players ...like that mode is Dorico it was to my father and his fathes father ...etcc..so on the street they just kept it as Dorian ( Dorico ) sound of E to E no sharps or flats (E phrygian )
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
quote:
When you get past the fundamentals of Western European (Occidental) music I will be glad to chime in regarding Ecclesiastic musical systems. There is much everyone here needs to learn before a meaningful discussion can ensue. I recommend reading more.
Perhaps we can also discuss at some point Fibonacci Sequence, The Golden Mean, Chladni Patterns, Freemasonry, The Kabala, the reason behind the Nazi's conversion of standard concert pitch to 440hz and other speculative esoteric music ideas. Could be interesting and lots of room for humor there.
Posts: 2697
Joined: Jun. 7 2010
From: The South Ireland
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
@romerito yes it is more complicated but I only wanted to write one paragraph not a book, I already did that for my thesis , Remember Flamenco is music of the people and changes and will continue to change with time ...
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Ron.M)
Hi Ron,
While I agree that music theory is not a prerequisite to being a good musician, I'd like to point out a few misconceptions that you so generously (no cynicism) illustrated.
Hendrix didn't do anything that was 'wrong' in a theoretical view. In fact, I never learned that anything was 'wrong' in theory. Theory is only a means of putting practical actions (such as plunking a string in order to make sound) into words. For example - in the Baroque period there was no concept of a 'chord', the combination of C-E-G was just that, a combination. No one was calling it C Major. But does that mean they weren't using chords? Of course not. The whole concept of chords came about maybe a hundred years after they were in use. Someone just wanted a system to explain all these note combinations.
It's not only western society that feels a need to explain. The ancient Egyptians were pioneers of mathematics, and what are the Eastern religions but an attempt to explain life itself? The need to explain is imbued in all of us, regardless of culture/geographical location.
Of course music theory in not NECESSARY for inspiration, but think of it as if you're a writer--the more words you know the fancier your writing will be. Do you NEED fancy words to tell a good story? No. Will using the same fifty or so words all the time make all your stories sound the same? I'll leave that up to you to decide.
Lastly, I want to say that bringing up the example of Hendrix or Paco de Lucia is not fair. Of course if we could all play like that we would never need anything else. But those are few and far in between (oo, I can't believe I used that phrase). The rest of us need to work hard. In addition, you can be sure that they understood harmonic functions and chord/scale relationships. They might of not known what it was 'called' but they knew what it was for (relating back to chords in the Baroque).
Cheers to you for a stimulating conversation, Chesty
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to chester)
Hi chester,
I take your point and I'm not easily offended so don't be shy, fire away.
This is not a conclusion I have reached over many years, but something I've always felt from an early age.
I heard a great radio programme years ago where the musicologists spent half an hour explaining why Louis Armstrong's trumpet intro to "West End Blues" had been subjected to the highest critical musical analysis and found to be "the most perfect Jazz composition ever".
Apparently it had even been notated and analysed in Academic circles, with thorough explanations of each note by note transition and published in high brow musical journals of the time.
When Louis himself was asked about this amazing reaction, all he could say was something like...
"Sh*t man...did I really play all that stuff?.... "
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
To Romerito et al,
The Dorico Griego is inherent in the cante.
Manolo is very articulate about the guitar borrowing from Western-European (Occidental/Ecclesiastic) harmonic practice and he says to his students that the guitar should try to emulate the voice (cante). So you are correct in looking for the outside influences in the guitar's role in flamenco. It is up to each player to decide if they wish to play Choro, Samba, and Maxixie rhythms and harmonic progressions like for example, Tomatito and Diego el Cigala.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to coreydefresno)
quote:
Of course music theory in not NECESSARY for inspiration,
Right. For example Daniel Mendez composed the bienal winning piece "fin de ano en el exilio" and he didnt understand anything about music theory. It was in double dropped D + changed pitch of the 2nd string. I met him 2 years after that and he said, now he started to learn the theory.. So you don´t need to know the theory to do awesome things. They can even keep you down because of certain rules you will not easily break if you are experienced with music theory..but you go much further if you have no idea about the theory rules.
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
Good questions! I would love to answer this, and will as soon as I finish my last lesson of the day.
The G# is the nota sensible to A (G# is the resolution of the melodic note A) and as E is the nota sensible to F.
The G# is to be used HARMONICALLY, that means with the Final Chord, or to imply the tonic chord anywhere in a work. It sounds a a harmony to the final tonic note E.
If one uses the raised third repeatedly, it will sound like Zambra, which is more like Arab music from Morrocco than Flamenco.