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.
|
|
[Deleted]
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Joven35
Posts: 21
Joined: Nov. 4 2010
|
RE: Music theory is way too complicated (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Wow! Yeah, I agree Jason. Discussion is a good thing. I am really glad this is going on. So, yeah, um, there are allot of posts and I would like to chime in but I can only do a few right now. This Thursday I will have more free time. Monday-Wednesday are my busiest days. 1.) What I should have said that made me so happy the first time is the post about "notes" and "pitches". This is a fundamental misunderstanding by many music students. Here is some food for thought: Are there 12 notes? Are there 12 pitches? What ever your answer will have a profound impact on your thoughts about music (and I am not talking about Microtonality). Here is another one: are all intervals created equal? And yes, I am talking about traditional western ecclesiastical harmony, not some Asian or Near Eastern music. 2.) The comments regarding the ancient Greeks and them not all being created equal. Well, you are absolutely right. There were individuals (Pythagoreans) who held a very strict and religious view of music, and then there were individuals who saw the more practical applications (Aristoxenus), and still even more there were the common every days Greeks who went to the Gymnasium and studied music like any good Greek citizen (All good Greek citizens knew how to sing – it was common courtesy). Even more, when ever a play came to town, all the citizens would go and hear the play SUNG not read by a chorus of men. Or how about the citharoedus, professional chitarode players who accompanied singers and even had large competitions to see who was the best – like we still do today. 3.) There are allot of questions being asked that are either addressed in articles we already wrote (flamencoprofessor.com – shameless plug) or in Manolo's book and he is very clear in his writing about his thoughts on many of the things individules are bringing up. I do not want to take up time to disscuss things that could be solved by just simply reading – unless you do not know where to look, then I can help you in telling you where to look. I hope this does not sound mean or like I do not want to be helpful but I just do not want to keep repeating myself. 4.) About not using one system to analize another…I whole heartly agree on this one. We should stop trying to analize flamenco (Cante Jondo) from an Ecclesiastical view point because we run into trouble. I am not saying you can not do this but adjustments must be made. I am sure this is obvious to most. Umm, I hope this is helpful. Sorry about the breveity I have to get going. This is a great thread. I hope keeps going. JAR p.s. I only replyed to Romerito because he was the last person to comment. Thx, Romerito.
_____________________________
His amazing technique is one that never loses touch with the spiritual improvisation and direct communication style of flamenco and which does not make virtuosity a goal in itself, but communicates deep sublime emotional qualities. - Manolo Sanlucar
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 17 2010 16:24:03
|
|
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 |
0.140625 secs.
|