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.
Hello again everyone. Recently, I have been adding to my CD collection. I have bought CDs by Paco Pena, Tomatito, Canizares and Gerardo Nunez, amongst others. But my concern is this: what is "Flamenco" and what isn't? And what is "Nuevo" Flamenco and what isn't? Obviously guitarists like PDL have always pushed the boundries between Flamenco and other musical genres. But where does this stop being "Flamenco"? I recently also got CDs by people like Strunz and Farah, Rodrigo Y Gabriela, Luis Villegas, Oscar Lopez, NovaMenco, Ottmar Liebert and Behzad. I think most of these artists consider themselves as "New" Flamenco. But Strunz and Farah, for example, may use Flamenco guitars (Maldonado I believe). But they also play using PLECTRUMS, which I don't think Flamenco does. So where are the lines drawn between "Flamenco", "New Flamenco" and.... NEITHER of the two? As usual, any informed opinions on this matter would be very much appreciated. Thanks.
When a guitarist uses the forms to compose, it should considered "flamenco" modern or not. Strunz and Farah play a much more South American or Latin gutiar style than even the Gypsy Kings (Rumba which is Spanish). The other guys you mentioned are copying Strunz and Farah IMO, who themselves are going for the Al John and Paco vibe, with latin percussion added in. I am into all this music, but I will say that none of it uses the flamenco forms. Paco introduced the rhythm of Alegrias to Al and John, and uses the falsetas as the "head", then they soloed over some very un-flamenco changes. Not sure it can still be called "Alegrias", but it was a cool fusion (the tune "Chiquito" from Passion Grace and Fire).
But the other guys like Strunz, Liebert, Lopez, etc, they are not even playing the real Rumba. Entre do Aguas was a rumba, and these guys are going for that vibe sometimes, but the rhythm guitars sound more like south american strumming. The soloing over changes is not really even jazzy, it is more like what Paco and Al did back in the 70's. So there you have the neouveaeu flamenco.
Ricardo
PS, check out ToddK's videos to see flamenco w/ a plecktrum.
I spent a few years in Brasil, maybe about 25 years ago and I must admit the music is very compelling. The Samba chords and progessions are something else. It definitely compared in substance and expression to Flamenco, but not quite. When I hear some of VA's stuff, I hear a lot of Samba...not Flamenco. You can turn Samba/Bossa Nova easily to Tangos...no sweat and if you are living in a predominantly "phrygian" environment, then it sounds "new" and "cool". But it's really just "Tangoized" Samba IMO. Bulerias also lend themselves easily to this treatment. The main idea is to play mucho Samba style chords and progressions, then after a few falsetas resolve into a traditional Flamenco cadence. The result? New, cool nuevo Flamenco. It sounded cool when I first heard it, but I must admit that in spite of some of the technical ability on show, the idea is getting a bit long in the tooth now IMO. Everybody does it now, even the struggling amateur with a couple of years playing under his belt. In short, that idea getting boring. Somebody started a thread on another forum about who would carry the torch from Paco de Lucia, who took that giant leap of imagination. Myself, I think there is maybe somebody, who is not listening to Paco and Tomatito and Vincente etc, but perhaps listening to Manuel Morao with Terremoto and thinking of a new way of exploring that feeling. If not then my feeling is that Flamenco Guitar will generally dissipate into Guitar in general, encompassing Jazz, Blues, Latin, Indo...etc. Flamenco guitar will be whatever you want it to be....
Ron... I know excatly what you mean and I am so confused cause I am agreeing with you and disagreeing at the same time.
On the one hand I love the jazzy, latin feel in some of the flamenco it just makes it more musical & melodic.
On the other hand I dont want it to just become jazz in compas !
I guess balance is the key, thats what makes this guitarists so masterfull Paco, Vicente Tomatito have all contribuied into making the the flamenco guitar more melodic but at the same time they have all managed to preserve the "Aire". I have always tought that the flamenco is not in the chords, keys or modes you play in but in the " Aire" that comes out and i hope we can all agree that the " Aire " is very much present in the music of all the 3 guitarists.
I've been studying a lot of theory lately, and delving into some sambas and bossas. I have to say they do have a very compelling feel to them, very cool and laid back (in some senses like a rumba like Entre Does Aguas at times), and their intricate and complex chord progressions are enticing to the musician in an intellectual way (like Sabicas said, all musicos love Tarantas).
They are a case of being a victim of their own popularity... I guess they were very popular in what the 60's, so much that now they are the very definition of elevator music! Isn't that tragic, that an excellent musical tradition could become so marginalized by popularity?
Paco de Lucia brought me into flamenco, Vicente enticed me, but Paco Pena is bringing me back toward Ron! In a sense, the modern style of jazzy chords and virtuoso experimentation is a kind of fashionable frill on what is the essence; and you can take it or leave it. Right now, I am starting to feel in myself that I would rather get the intellectual stimulation from classical or Brazil, and keep flamenco for the rhythm and aggression.
Thanks for your comments so far everyone... some interesting views.
I have the Strunz and Farah DVD and I noticed in the interviews, that they both say that PDL was one of their major influences.
I would agree that it is a shame that some parts of this genre have turned into "elevator music" or "muzak".
Don't get me wrong... I do like traditional Flamenco, but I feel that it must be varied and accessible to some degree if it is to survive (although if it becomes too varied, it looses its essence, and too accessible, it becomes muzak).
But one thing I've noticed is that if I put on a Strunz and Farah CD, the rest of my family can appreciate it and hum along. But they don't have the same appreciation when I put on a Paco Pena CD... perhaps it is just not commercial enough, or maybe my family just has bad taste! But I get similar reactions with some of my non-flamenco friends.
Generally, I don't think the Nuevo Flamenco movement is a bad thing, as I enjoy some of the songs, and they add another dimension to Flamenco that may appeal to an extended audience. It may be a "fashionable frill of what is the essence", but I think its important to be able to appreciate good music, even if it is derived from other sources.
They might not replace "the real thing", but never the less, some of these musicians are still very talented.
James
By the way, from what I could tell from the Francisco Sanchez DVD, PDL didn't think too highly of his "Guitar Trio" performances, and perhaps thought they were less inspired than his solo work.
Brazillian stuff is definantly an influence on modern flamenco guitarists, but what I was talking about "South American" was more in the guitar strumming of this Neoueuoioivooooeiua flamenco stuff. More like Andes stuff or latin style strumming. (Of course not really Andes, but it is not flamenco style strumming at all. I know the "chacarrera".) Rhythm guitar is a real big part of the feeling that comes through the music, whether it is guitar solo stuff or cante accompaniment. You can tell what is or is not flamenco, or even what style or epoc the recording was made, all from how the rhythm guitar is expressed. There is a recording of a French Gypsy playing Django style on steel strings, but one track is bulerias, and I mean REALLY bulerias, no one would confuse it even though it sounds funny on steel strings.
Paco went from being the king of an entire genre, to "learning" on stage w/ Mclaughlin and Co. He wanted to improvise on changes and felt out of place w/ those guys. But... in those interviews he is being cute and humble. Just check out the video of Meeting of the Spirits, way back in 79. He was mopping the floor w/ those guys and he KNEW it. He is super confident on stage, you can see it. I also have a bootleg vid of Dimeola/ Mc, and Paco from 81. Again, he knew what he was doing up there. It was a fusion, everyone learning from each other. 1996 was another story. I heard a rumor of actual fist fighting between those guys.
I think Ricardo certainly hit the nail on the head with his replies. I would like to add that in Spain there doesn't seem to be quite the level of confusion over what flamenco is compared to the English speaking world. In record shops over there you will find a "Flamenco" section, and you will also find a "Rumba" section. Often commercial Sevillanas are lumped together with rumbas in one section, "Rumbas y Sevillanas". The rumba here refers to "rumba Catalan", a popular style of Spanish music apparently first appearing in the Catalan region of Spain, and is really a simplified version of the original Cuban rumba (which often has complex polyrhythms of probable African origen).
Of course things are not quite as clear cut as that - most flamenco albums have a rumba (often track 1), and the rumba "La causa de todos mis males" on La Tana's new CD has a very flamenco sound. However things get much more confused in the English speaking world where putting "flamenco" in the title of a group or album is often done purely to sell rumba CDs which not only have nothing to do with flamenco, as Ricardo pointed out they also have very little to do with the Spanish version of the rumba. Not that there is anything wrong with what they play, a lot of people seem to like it, but it would be nice to see some honesty in their nomenclature, if only to avoid confusion.
I also have a bootleg vid of Dimeola/ Mc, and Paco from 81. Again, he knew what he was doing up there. It was a fusion, everyone learning from each other. 1996 was another story. I heard a rumor of actual fist fighting between those guys.
Ricardo
Ricardo, I just saw that '81 bootleg vid of the trio. I think that's the fastest and cleanest I've ever seen or heard Paco rip. And he looked like he was having a blast the whole time.
But what's more interesting to me is how you found this thread to even revive it? I mean what were your search terms? Why did you even think about searching at all as opposed to just posting the thing you wanted to post on a new thread!?
I for one enjoyed rediscovering all the Nuñez and ToddK bashing of 2003 (“shaky compás” eye roll). Good times!
I think my first ever foro post was on this page. Another annoying read through. I still feel the same as then with one exception. Eventually Zata claims rhythm for a singer is diffferent than the guitarist for the core cantes (solea, siguiriyas etc). It was years later I understood her point better and now view the old school cante as “out of the box” meaning just like a Fandango por Solea, a set melody can be sung freely on top of the guitar rhythm. The juxtaposition of in the box and out of the box cantes resulted in a new trend of trying to box in those cantes by slowing down the compas or making it extremely elastic such that it fits in the box it was not going to be in if the guitarist played straight like Melchor or Ricardo. Easy to see the argument there. Also she was correct that my “circle of regulars” were singing in the box on a regular basis, and this is considered to be “correct” and orthodox (from their perspective…and these are SPANIARDS I speak of, not ‘mericans). But there was lurking something to learn in the end, and I have preached about it here on foro and demonstrated it in the cante accompaniment thread many times.
Dear Lord. I almost got a headache going through this thread for 10 times. I do not get it. Is counting in twos something that never happened before? And you Ricardo, as always, explain it as analytically and specifically as possible through writing. And then it is said that something else was meant instead but... I will not be able to sleep peacefully now I also thought counting in twos in bulerias is when I hit my foot on 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and it is actually as counting a 6/8 or 3/4 , and I alternate that at some point with counting on the bulerias' main beats depending on the falseta or if I have to help the others understand where we are.
Speaking as a groover rather than a reader, I think the body's natural response to the rhythm is key. It's not an instruction to the head so best left to its own devices.
To this end, having read all (most) of the Buleria compás thread...
clap 12 . . 3 . . 6 . 8 . 10 . with the hands and 12 . 2 . 4 . 6 . 8. 10 . with the foot.
Easy.
Now swap.
Huh?!
Maybe it's just me. I'll never be a drummer (or guitarist).
I can do it if all 12 beats are included in the hand but not pairs. Wow.
To translate that early part of the thread. Zata had “discovered” what she calls “twos” at some point. When I first went to spain I noticed the palmeros standing up alternate their feet by rocking or “dancing in place”, side to side, as you guys just said “12,2,4,6,8,10 etc.”. So she is very correct that it is a baseline of sorts. The guy at :23 and guy on the right at :30 for example:
Even that is not continuous, they change the feel in their feet whenever the heck they want.
What I was trying to clarify was that “twos” don’t occur from a phrasing standpoint, ad infinitum as she implies verbally. Meaning 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 to infinity. You can in theory create a groove based on that rhythm but that is not what bulerias is expressing. The so called “twos” are best expressed as “1&,2&,3&,1&2&3&” such that every 3 times you have a phrasing cap, or downbeat feeling. It is not enough to simply say “twos is the answer”. It has to be at least 3 groups of “twos” or you are not feeling the phrases correct.
But every time I mentioned the word “three” or number “3” having to do with this concept, the response was “no that is a WALTZ”. So I was not ever able to help out with the clarification and it went circular.
But in addition to the above. The TRUTH about buleria is that you have to also be able to flip the general groove and feel into a VERY fast Soleá with no bump in the road. As is in the 10 count phrase that emphasizes fast “1,2,3….” And stops hard or closes on count 10. It is a jarring and strange feel that is essentially, if you keep that above “twos” feeling going at the same time, is like this strange phrase that jumps as “&2&(3&1)&2&3(stop hard)”. Which is a pretty unusual type of rhythmic expression. This phrase is best learned with the dancers where this game of flipping the feel between Soleá very fast and the normal Bulería groove, is a bit of a game that is fun to play. It is like a secret code hidden in the rhythm itself that once you understand it, you get in a deeper communication with the other flamenco artists. And everybody feels when to stop all of a sudden. This won’t happen if you are just “feeling twos” ad infinitum.
At 2:09 and also 5:13 a single compás of Soleá like a llamada is expressed.
Here is a favorite dramatic example. The Bulería feel changes to Soleá (very fast) at 4:04 till the end (4 compáses and a final cierre is the 5th). It is amusing to me how many people I show this to and they can’t stop on 10 with them because they are not hearing the Soleá 1-10 count in there.
Last, here from 2:50 you can hear the change to Soleá phrasing till 3:07.
The fun thing about the above examples is that ON TOPIC, they mix traditional and modern ideas yet remain ON TRACK as authentic flamenco not to be confused for that “nouveau” fakemenco mentioned, because at the root the compás expressions are unique to flamenco.
To my ears this kind of phrasing was not confusing at all, but I never thought it had to do with the digesting of solea before trying the buleria which I did. I always felt it just as a silent downbeat (the 12th) which is something very common in many bulerias , going strong on the next accentuated beat (the 3).
Anyway, thank you for the perfect examples! And it was also fun going through some old threads.
Printable Version
But I get similar reactions with some of my non-flamenco friends. 
I also thought counting in twos in bulerias is when I hit my foot on 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and it is actually as counting a 6/8 or 3/4 , and I alternate that at some point with counting on the bulerias' main beats depending on the falseta or if I have to help the others understand where we are. 
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