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.
For instance some of you may not realize but it was PDL who brought the CAJON into FLamenco from Peru
You make it sound like Paco went to Peru and specifically chose cajon as the new flamenco sound. Actually it was Rubem Dantes who brought the Cajon into flamenco. I have a story about this point...a couple of years ago I was in the Eshavira and it wasnt a busy night. Rubem Dantes happened to be in the bar and as noone was around I got talking to him. I asked him about the cajon and if he ever thought at the time what effect it would have on flamenco in the future. He laughed at the question "no man," he said " it was more or less an accident" Rubem is known as a cajon player but he is a percussionist who plays everything from drums to african thumb piano and he collects instruments. In the recording of PDL's "solo quiero caminar" he brought a collection of percussion instruments with him to the studio, one of them being a cajon from peru. He had been playing various instruments during the sessions and literally during a break he was messing around doing some buleria on a cajon. Paco liked it and started jamming to it and thats when they decided to put cajon on the album. After that everyone wanted cajon to accompany bulerias. So according to Rubem Dantes the whole thing started as a jam in the studio and accidentally became a part of the flamenco culture. He couldnt believe what an influence that recording had. Within a few years cajon became an established flamenco instrument with its own technique.
This kind of story happens a lot. One night a guy forgets the letra to Alegria and sings "tiriti tran tran tran".....next thing everyone is singing it. I suspect that 2 guys were playing fandango one day when one of the capos broke, so the 2cd guy is playing fandango in B to match the first, or maybe someone just didnt have a capo and had to raise pitch to a singer...and Granaina is born.
The difference with Paco is explained very well in Ricardos answers. Some flamencos have added a technique or a sound or a letra or something to add to the genre. Paco on the other hand single handedly evolved the whole flamenco sound IN EVERY PALO. Not only that, he reinvented the flamenco sound at least twice in his career. NOONE in musical history has COMPLETELY reinvented their own musical genre...even Hendrx didnt reinvent rock music. Dont forget that at the time when Paco was releasing stuff in the 70's ( what you call the old stuff) he was heavily criticised, lots of people didnt like it, lots of people didnt understand it, and yet now that material is now considered classic and standard by almost everyone. The same opinions were being made as are being posted about his modern material now. Almost everytime you study a modern piece now you will get to a part where one can say, thats a Paco arpeggio, or thats a Paco harmony. As a student its hard to see at first but thats why it takes so long to study.
I also agree its fair to say Flamenco music isnt just about Paco. Thats true, its like saying Baroque music isnt just about Bach... but on the other hand, It would sound a little uneducated to say that you generally love baroque music but Bach is a bit complicated and clinical so you dont listen to him (unless its Air on the G string).
I realise that I have probably just commited Heresy
Heresy indeed! But don't worry there are plenty of us out there. I first met flamenco in the early seventies when i was dragged along to a Paco Pena performance in Norwich. I was completely blown away by it and my love of flamenco was born. Around the same time a freind was raving about a PDL album; I just didn't get it and nothings changed in the years since. Believe me I've listened to his music, but his music just doesn't hit the spot for me. The CDs just gather dust. Try listening to Moraito, Tomatito, El Gastor, the Habichuelas
It would sound a little uneducated to say that you generally love baroque music but Bach is a bit complicated and clinical so you dont listen to him (unless its Air on the G string).
No objection to the matter of special education; however the analogy doesn´t work in terms of musicality. Bach´s speciality was his unparalleled sense for harmony. His works are literally fountains of melody which just start out at a point in the individual piece where you´d think that to have been already all that could be possible within the range of notes employed. That is mastery of groove ( with least of means ).
Whereas, as I mentioned before, of the melodically pulling / grooving flamenco pieces only a few are from Paco. With EDA being closest to the melodic richness of a Bach composition.
I personally would love to see Paco skip originality for once, assemble the most groovy works of the genre ( flamenco & Latin styles ) and cover them with his personal touch.
however the analogy doesn´t work in terms of musicality.
I am actually aware of the musical differences between PDL and Bach. I was trying to illustrate importance as figures in musical history rather than compositional style.
Whereas, as I mentioned before, of the melodically pulling / grooving flamenco pieces only a few are from Paco.
I like Bach more for his polyphony then just any one melody, and rhythmically his stuff that is up tempo drives machine-like almost constant. Of course interpretation could change things in that department. For me there is not so much interesting polyphony in flamenco, yet it makes up for it in the rhythm and groove department big time. I am surprised you are not getting that from Paco's music but are from Bach....weird. There are some interesting guitar duets that make use of polyphony simply because the two players are doing their own melodies, a far cry from what Bach was doing, but the super rich compas playing field makes for equally sophisticated compositions IMO. (talking Rhythm, Bach music starts, goes and goes and then stops...always V-I, always ending on beat even if it starts off beat, often repeating entire sections. Flamenco has llamada, remate, and tons of other important elements that need be expressed that opens doors of infinite rhythmic variety, yet need not make use of any repetition) Here is a cool comparison regarding polyphony and rhythm:
I couldn't listen to very much of either of those examples, though the abilities of the artists are not at all in question. The "music" is disjointed to me; no central theme, if you will. A good display of playing ability, but not much else. Some of the newer flamenco is like that to my ears, disjointed. It is like taking a Beatles song, playing it on a nylon string guitar, adding a flamenco flare to it, and then calling it flamenco. Sometimes the artist can make it work, sometimes not. Again, just personal taste.
dude, just go ahead and name him. if you want people to know who he is and if you know that he was forgotten by history, then do him justice and mention his name, if what you say is true. I know that all the lights were on paco and his shadow made some other geniuses or great guitarists unknown.
However, I know someone who is every bit a genius as Paco.
I hope you realize that your being so coy about not naming this person renders everything you say about him suspect. I am one of those who do not think Paco de Lucia is God, but I do recognize that he advanced flamenco in ways that no one else has to date. For you to say that "someone" you know is every bit as much a genius as Paco, while refusing to name him because he is "humble," just sounds like so much flim flam. If what you say is true, you should be willing to put your statement on the line for others to test it. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to take your statement seriously. It is as if I said that I know someone who has solved a 300-year-old mathematical problem that had eluded all the best minds, but I can't name him because he is a "humble" man. Why should anyone believe such nonsense?
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."
I couldn't listen to very much of either of those examples, though the abilities of the artists are not at all in question. The "music" is disjointed to me; no central theme, if you will. A good display of playing ability, but not much else.
Couldn't or wouldn't??? Not sure what the big challenge was to simply look for the things I was pointing out unless you don't know what I mean about polyphony/counterpoint or rhythm. It is a shame folks don't get something and feel a need to tell the world about how "there is nothing there musically...". I just don't get that. The point was not about playing ability for either video I posted, it was about compositional elements.
Anyway, if you know anything about sevillanas (meaning how to play it, dance it, or sing it or even just do palmas or percussion for it so you know the structure and form and can stop at the right time) then the "disjointedness" of the guitar duo disappears, the strangeness of the harmonies come into focus and the tightness of the rhythmic expression jumps out and smacks you in the face, it is very intense and cool twist they put into a very old static form.
Anyway, I feel that flamenco guitarists don't get to be "figuras" in the genre unless they make a recording with a prominent flamenco singer and first prove themselves as an accompanist. Early on with my flamenco studies and reading, I was always confused why Paco Peña was rarely mentioned by aficionados until I started to figure out what is important is to make a name for oneself working to accompany. In fact I was surprised at how calling someone a "solista" can be taken as in insult to a guitarist. Like saying "sure you can play guitar but you don't understand flamenco so go show off your concert playing, woopty doo". But it is just the way the art form is.
So my question is which prominent singers did Pedro Cuadra accompany? (sorry romerito I could help it man. You brought this same thing up years ago)
So my question is which prominent singers did Pedro Cuadra accompany? (sorry romerito I could help it man. You brought this same thing up years ago)
OMG, That is the name of the guitarist in my recordings in the other thread There was big hype over this guy according to my father and his name was Pedro Cuadra
So my question is which prominent singers did Pedro Cuadra accompany? (sorry romerito I could help it man. You brought this same thing up years ago)
OMG, That is the name of the guitarist in my recordings in the other thread There was big hype over this guy according to my father and his name was Pedro Cuadra
Oh man flamenco world is pretty small. I have already made my comments under your clips, BEFORE I even know it was him. Romerito is gonna be so mad. But still, too funny that you found those clips..... Maybe I should delete my comments now I think about it.....don't want any trouble!
Actually what am I thinking? I need to start my own dissertation NOW and try to publish before Romerito does!!! Getting to work!!! just kidding
thanks guys for saying out loud what i thought... we obviously have a very different approach to flamenco and will never see eye to eye, so it makes little sense to argue on my part...
....It is a shame folks don't get something and feel a need to tell the world about how "there is nothing there musically...". I just don't get that. The point was not about playing ability for either video I posted, it was about compositional elements.
Anyway, if you know anything about sevillanas (meaning how to play it, dance it, or sing it or even just do palmas or percussion for it so you know the structure and form and can stop at the right time) then the "disjointedness" of the guitar duo disappears, the strangeness of the harmonies come into focus and the tightness of the rhythmic expression jumps out and smacks you in the face, it is very intense and cool twist they put into a very old static form.
I am in no way trying to be argumentative here, so please don't take this as such. Music, to me has to be pleasing to my ears. Neither of those pieces were. They were "interesting" to both watch and listen to, but I couldn't (and wouldn't) take a steady diet of them. I think the two statements you made are why "clinical" comes into play here. If you study them, you can see their technical qualities, but that doesn't make them anymore pleasing to my ears. I think that is the point, why they are "clinical" and less musical to me. JMO; I don't profess in anyway to be an expert and confess that I am, perhaps, somewhat musically shallow. Just a matter of likes and dislikes.
Oh man flamenco world is pretty small. I have already made my comments under your clips, BEFORE I even know it was him. Romerito is gonna be so mad. But still, too funny that you found those clips..... Maybe I should delete my comments now I think about it.....don't want any trouble!
I couldn't believe it either. I came back to this thread to post the link to mine. After i hit post i read your post and then I saw you had written his name. Hence the OMG!!!
As soon as i read Romerito's comment, for some reason i instantly thought of that old tape. That's very strange if it is the same guy Romerito was referring too.
If you study them, you can see their technical qualities, but that doesn't make them anymore pleasing to my ears.
How could you possibly know that until you have done it? Your ears and perceptions are tied to your brain and what it knows, remembers, and predicts. The more you learn, the more your tastes are affected. In my case, it is quite the norm that if I learn more about a piece or style or some other specific, the more I enjoy listening as well, regardless if I either loved or hated or was indifferent on first hearing.
...In my case, it is quite the norm that if I learn more about a piece or style or some other specific, the more I enjoy listening as well, regardless if I either loved or hated or was indifferent on first hearing.
I guess that is what makes people different. I can learn more about a piece and appreciate what went into its development and never come to like a steady diet of listening to it. I have had the opposite experience as well, where I have really liked a piece, and after much exposure became indifferent to it. Peace.
ORIGINAL: Ricardo I was always confused why Paco Peña was rarely mentioned by aficionados until I started to figure out what is important is to make a name for oneself working to accompany.
Another reason is that Paco Peña launched his career from London where he moved to in the early 80s. He is not generally known in Spain apart from Cordoba his home town where he still has a house, friends and family. Also I have never heard of him playing concerts in Spain.
Printable Version
There was big hype over this guy according to my father and his name was Pedro Cuadra 
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