Foro Flamenco


Posts Since Last Visit | Advanced Search | Home | Register | Login

Today's Posts | Inbox | Profile | Our Rules | Contact Admin | Log Out



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: Sight more important than sound?   You are logged in as Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: <<   <   1 [2]
Login
Message<< Newer Topic  Older Topic >>
 
Kalo

 

Posts: 400
Joined: Jan. 25 2011
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Turron

quote:

People confuse speed and flash with "technique". Malmsteen is fast and sometimes very expressive, yet he rushes the compas all the time to the point it is annoying. Perhaps to unschooled listeners it sounds either like "too many notes" or is simply amazing. Beck always controls the time in a way it feels like he has more knowledge and technique and schooling. Malmsteen sounds un schooled and crazy at times, even when he (and especially when) he attempts to interpret Bach or Paganini... always hap hazard and rushing tempo. Speed is not always technique...but controlling rhythm is.


I LOVE IT, not only great advice for flamenco guitarist, but, a Rock Guitarist and SO TRUE

quote:

People talk about Moraito music as if it is "easier" or requires LESS technique than others. Ok then please reproduce it? Moraito has a technique and control up there with the rest of the maestros, with an added dimension to it in certain aspects of "soniquete" expression. It is not simply that he is from jerez and "feels" it a certain way, but more importantly that he has a physical and technical ABILITY to produce that "sound" which was many years in the making. Many many hours of repeating the same phrasing until it is natural as speaking or walking. THAT is high technique IMO. People who play music and make it somehow SOUND difficult to play rather than natural and flowing, are actually LACKING in technique skills, yet inevitably get labeled as "technical players".


First off, I LOVE Moraito! Second, another GREAT analogy and advice we ALL can benefit from!!!

Kalo
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 22 2013 19:19:46
 
Mark2

Posts: 1891
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Ricardo

Totally agree-it's great technique that produces those moments. To me, since I knew her dancing and level well, the pretty girl likely wasn't capable of doing that, but in the eyes of the two guys who favored her performance, who knows?

I consider Beck's technique way beyond Malmsteen, but I doubt that is the common view.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo


To examine your description, I consider a "movement" and "perfectly placed note"...directly related to TECHNIQUE and TIMING. Ricardo
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 22 2013 19:36:58
 
flamencositar

 

Posts: 76
Joined: Aug. 8 2012
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Ricardo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

A single movement, or a perfectly placed note, can create an emotional response in an audience that trumps better technique.


You should probably know me by now, I don't prescribe to the bogus "feel vs chops" critique.

To examine your description, I consider a "movement" and "perfectly placed note"...directly related to TECHNIQUE and TIMING. As to your other statement, I feel that the person with the BETTER COMPAS is always clearly the more advanced performer. I for one see right through the charismatic "expressive" artist that is trying to cover their limitations with certain shiny objects. Farruco's 'pose" is all technical, to the point it is a natural expression. Try to copy or do better and you confront your own technical limitations, plain and simple. Carpeta a perfect example. What could that baby possibly know about life love and pain such that he can express so well with dance better than anyone of us???

People confuse speed and flash with "technique". Malmsteen is fast and sometimes very expressive, yet he rushes the compas all the time to the point it is annoying. Perhaps to unschooled listeners it sounds either like "too many notes" or is simply amazing. Beck always controls the time in a way it feels like he has more knowledge and technique and schooling. Malmsteen sounds un schooled and crazy at times, even when he (and especially when) he attempts to interpret Bach or Paganini... always hap hazard and rushing tempo. Speed is not always technique...but controlling rhythm is.

People talk about Moraito music as if it is "easier" or requires LESS technique than others. Ok then please reproduce it? Moraito has a technique and control up there with the rest of the maestros, with an added dimension to it in certain aspects of "soniquete" expression. It is not simply that he is from jerez and "feels" it a certain way, but more importantly that he has a physical and technical ABILITY to produce that "sound" which was many years in the making. Many many hours of repeating the same phrasing until it is natural as speaking or walking. THAT is high technique IMO. People who play music and make it somehow SOUND difficult to play rather than natural and flowing, are actually LACKING in technique skills, yet inevitably get labeled as "technical players".

Ricardo


Sr. Marlow has ended the thread! Knowledge bomb!!

_____________________________

Still the body, quiet the mind, free the soul
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 22 2013 19:43:47
 
Leñador

Posts: 5237
Joined: Jun. 8 2012
From: Los Angeles

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Kalo

quote:

but in the eyes of the two guys who favored her performance, who knows?


I'm gunna be a total d*ck here and just say the opinion of those who aren't educated on something is of less value then that of someone who is. Even in art.

IE, your opinion is of more value then your two friends.

Oh yeah, and Malmsteen forever!! \m/ lol jk, I agree that Beck is a "better" guitar player, and that's coming from a metal head....

_____________________________

\m/
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 22 2013 20:04:30
 
ralexander

Posts: 797
Joined: Jun. 1 2010
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Richard Jernigan

quote:

I often close my eyes at concerts.


Me too. When the music starts reaching the next level, it's a great way to filter out other distractions and really let it in.

quote:

looking cool when you play can be more important than the sounds you make


Important, sure. More important than the sounds, no f'ing way! Not if you are truly receptive and if the music can stand on it's own. I think it's unfortunate that so many people need to have things repackaged or polished in order to enjoy them.

quote:

People talk about Moraito music as if it is "easier" or requires LESS technique than others. Ok then please reproduce it? Moraito has a technique and control up there with the rest of the maestros, with an added dimension to it in certain aspects of "soniquete" expression. It is not simply that he is from jerez and "feels" it a certain way, but more importantly that he has a physical and technical ABILITY to produce that "sound" which was many years in the making. Many many hours of repeating the same phrasing until it is natural as speaking or walking. THAT is high technique IMO. People who play music and make it somehow SOUND difficult to play rather than natural and flowing, are actually LACKING in technique skills, yet inevitably get labeled as "technical players".


Well said, so true.

_____________________________

Ryan
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 12:50:51
 
ralexander

Posts: 797
Joined: Jun. 1 2010
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Leñador

quote:

I'm gunna be a total d*ck here and just say the opinion of those who aren't educated on something is of less value then that of someone who is. Even in art.


I don't think that's a d*ck thing to say - some people might not agree, but they are wrong It's a fact of life.

_____________________________

Ryan
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 12:53:32
 
Grisha

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: Mar. 17 2005
 

[Deleted] 

Post has been moved to the Recycle Bin at Aug. 25 2013 16:30:06
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 15:37:01
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Grisha

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grisha

Majority of today's audience expect a show, not a concert. People who go to classical performances in the states are well over half-century old. Most young people with TV commercial-inspired 2 second attention span don't enjoy music that requires you to follow lines for more than a few measures. With the musical education doing such a good job nowadays you can't expect them to understand a thing they hear. Today's pop music with endless autotuned vocal melismas in place of melodies and dumb heavy 4/4 beat has completely destroyed musical taste in millions. And then there is MTV... What are they supposed to do when they are faced with a serious instrumental piece? Look at the performer for clues. "Let the music speak for itself" is sooo last century. So for the majority, of course sight is more important.


I feel your pain man.

Teaching can be soul destroying.

It is fashionable to work in an environment where teachers are being told that children have fully formed artistic sensibilities. And observers with no real emotional involvement with music (well not the SOUND of music) applaude this feeling that the children are being empowered.

The opposite is true. They are being denied an education and left at the mercy of the spoonfeeding media.

Imagine if you run a cookery school and each pupil tells you what they want to learn to cook. And they all choose from the Macdonalds menu. If you don't teach them this then you are 'unprofessional' or you are 'suppressing' them.

Or maybe they want to cook the perfect pasta dish but have no experience of chopping and onion and refuse to try or maybe cut it into four. So your supervisor gives you a row for not chopping the onion for them.

Or you cook the Macdonalds for them but use prime beef and instead of processed slurry and they tell you it is wrong and laugh. The real thing is alien and confusing.

Once you reconcile yourself to the reality of your fate and become a true professional you will find that basically you are working at Macdonalds for Macdonalds and against cooking.

So you escape and open a restaurant. And the stupid fu@@ere send every second steak back for being 'raw'.

(Harrumph armfold scowl)...........

(Laugh)

D.

(I'll maybe give the analogies a rest for a bit now )

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 15:58:41
 
Kalo

 

Posts: 400
Joined: Jan. 25 2011
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Turron

Well, as gloomy as this all sounds, one thing I still believe in is that TRUE ART will will always survive!

Many of today's listeners may be hyponitized to all the pop music, autotune, lipsyncing performance/artist, but, there are many who want and still search for REAL music and real performance!


Kalo
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 18:45:37
 
Grisha

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: Mar. 17 2005
 

[Deleted] 

Post has been moved to the Recycle Bin at Aug. 25 2013 16:29:54
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 18:58:16
 
n85ae

 

Posts: 877
Joined: Sep. 7 2006
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Grisha

I think this has been the case since primitive man beat sticks on logs. I think it
is just wishful thinking by musicians to wish for more. I don't think the average
human today is any different than 1000 years ago.

It is the rare exception that is sophisticated, and those few are likely bi-polar
anyway ...

quote:

Majority of today's audience expects a show, not a concert.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 20:03:54
 
Miguel de Maria

Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to guitarbuddha

GB, that was an excellent rant! Maybe one of your best ever!

OF course I agree

_____________________________

Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ


Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 23 2013 23:01:12

ToddK

 

Posts: 2961
Joined: Dec. 6 2004
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Kalo

For as long as there's been music, people have been saying "Real Music" is dying.
Always the older music, was somehow the better, more pure music.
The new music is always the crappy, shallow music.

When the Beatles came out, people talked about them, like we
talk about Brittany Spears.

This will keep happening until the end of time. Stay out the argument, and avoid looking stupid. LOL

_____________________________

  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 1:57:19
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to ToddK

The Beatles, Britney.......

Britney has I feel progressed as a musician and composer in the last ten years in ways which her early promise could not possibly have indicated.

In contrast the failure of The Beatles to grow artistically between early Little Richard inspired tracks like Twist and Shout and the virtualy indistinguishable material of later albums, like Sgt. Peppers, shows only too clearly that modern production easthetics and the celebrity culture have enhanced the genre of pop music immeasurably.


D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 3:18:37
 
tijeretamiel

 

Posts: 441
Joined: Jan. 6 2012
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Kalo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kalo

Well, as gloomy as this all sounds, one thing I still believe in is that TRUE ART will will always survive!

Many of today's listeners may be hyponitized to all the pop music, autotune, lipsyncing performance/artist, but, there are many who want and still search for REAL music and real performance!



Getting back to flamenco, it seems that it's modern state isn't in that bad health. There seem to be a good generation of young guitarists (eg Dani, Diego, etc) who will carry flamenco's torch for a good few years to come. I read that in Spain that Flamenco is generating a huge amount of revenue through tourism.

On a broader context I think art evolves, with some musical forms may transpire to being evolutionary dead ends. In music waves come and go, musical forms which dominate the landscape do more often than not tend to run out of steam and the public loses interest, which I think has largely been in flamenco's favour, it's never been that fashionable/popular to fall out of fashion - it's never been in fashion.

With the advent of the internet/Youtube, there's been a democratisation of music. Bodies like the music press, radio, MTV are no longer as powerful as they once were. Sight may be more important than sound to some but not to everyone. There's something for everyone.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 9:59:48
 
ralexander

Posts: 797
Joined: Jun. 1 2010
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to guitarbuddha

quote:

The Beatles, Britney.......

Britney has I feel progressed as a musician and composer in the last ten years in ways which her early promise could not possibly have indicated.

In contrast the failure of The Beatles to grow artistically between early Little Richard inspired tracks like Twist and Shout and the virtualy indistinguishable material of later albums, like Sgt. Peppers, shows only too clearly that modern production easthetics and the celebrity culture have enhanced the genre of pop music immeasurably.


Post of the day Your cookie is in the mail

quote:

Stay out the argument, and avoid looking stupid. LOL


Sage advice, Todd

_____________________________

Ryan
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 12:47:26
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to ralexander

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralexander


Sage advice, Todd


I actually agreed with the entirety of Todd's post.

But also I am happy to relate that I am increasingly at ease with looking stupid online.

Looking stupid online is for all of us, and me most of all, inevitable.

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 13:03:26
 
Arash

Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Mark2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark2


I used to play for an older female dancer, and she was pretty skilled. A friend of mine got a gig and he hired a younger dancer who was extremely attractive. His friends, who were not afficianados, ended up seeing both dancers on different nights and told my buddy how much more they liked the younger one.

I thought at the time how lame that was. But years later, I realized that their thinking was maybe not as screwy as I had thought. In terms of entertainment value, perhaps the incredibly beautiful girl , who moved well, had some serious appeal even though her footwork was not in the same class as the other dancer. Not being flamencos, maybe they couldn't tell exactly how much more experience and technique the older lady had, or if they could, it was not enough to offset the difference in looks. I mean, one look, or move, from that hot girl could have made the difference. Does that make them stupid? Or simply honest in what they found entertaining?


The point is that your friend could have hired a hot slut doing some striptease instead of dancing flamenco and his non-aficionado friends would enjoy and like that much more than an old lady dancing too.
No difference. (Since you want to be honest).

You are asking the wrong questions from the wrong people about the wrong subject. Those friends are simply not qualified to answer some questions (such as : which dancer was better?) and shouldn't be asked those questions at all.

_____________________________

  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 24 2013 14:10:29
 
Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to guitarbuddha

quote:

ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha

The Beatles, Britney.......

Britney has I feel progressed as a musician and composer in the last ten years in ways which her early promise could not possibly have indicated.

In contrast the failure of The Beatles to grow artistically between early Little Richard inspired tracks like Twist and Shout and the virtualy indistinguishable material of later albums, like Sgt. Peppers, shows only too clearly that modern production easthetics and the celebrity culture have enhanced the genre of pop music immeasurably.


D.


David, that was a blind rant. Maybe your most missing out to date!

Some Stones fan must have washed your brain when you were a little kid.
But as grown-up you should know how to appriate both bands.

Ruphus
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 25 2013 8:46:52
 
Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Kalo

... And as an analogy to this threads topic, here something I mentioned last time just days ago to a guitar student:

Which is the silly overrating of lead singers. The vocalists sacks in all the admiration of the audience, while actually mastering instruments is so much more demanding than controlling your voice.

But a majority of people enjoys music merely as transporter for lyrics, which explains why lead singers make the major performance to them.

Ruphus
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 25 2013 8:52:26
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Turron

quote:

Did anyone here know Pedro Bacan? He grunted vocally along with the music when he played. Some musicians do that. Glenn Gould did it in the recording studio and drove his sound engineers nuts as they tried to subtract his vocalisations from the recordings.


Nino Ricardo sings and hums along with the singer all the time on alomst every recording.

If any engineers tried to edit out Ricardo or Gould they were erasing the performance. It's evident that Ricardo loved cante and Gould, Bach. I love those recordings for the human element. Gould is not my favorite Bach keyboard player, but I have everything he recorded. And Ricardo for cante', brilliant.

I like Dinu Lipati for Bach on keyboard, but there are many who do it well, and hum. And Hiefitz playing the Sonatas & Partitas for violin? He owned everyone in the 20the century and still owns 80 percent. He will tear your balls off. Nathan Milstein plays the hell about of Bach too.

PS Pedro Bacan, he remains one of my all time favorite guitarists across any genre.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 25 2013 12:56:01
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: Sight more important than sound? (in reply to Kalo

PSS
Sorry I got involved never my bad. I did not realize at first that this was yet another Penis Extension thread about who listens deeper.

Pardon me if I stepped on any members members.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Aug. 25 2013 13:03:05
Page:   <<   <   1 [2]
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: <<   <   1 [2]
Jump to:

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

0.09375 secs.