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.
To the OP: Sorry dude. If you can't afford a trip to Cordoba, and afford pricey lessons under the apprenticeship of a true master, visiting penas each night, and aren't willing to live/breathe/eat compas day and night....then please don't even think of learning how to play the Flamenco guitar. And don't even think about taking it up as a "hobby".
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but I love playing guitar. I really like the rhythm and beats of Flamenco. Actually made the effort to go to a flamenco dance class. If you tried to discourage me from playing Flamenco, you have failed.
I might be far from being a decent guitar player, let alone a decent flamenco guitar player (by the standards on this forum), but this is more an inspiration to pursue something worth while. I've given up many things in life and guitar playing along with classical and flamenco styles, I will not give up. I don't care how long it might take or how much I need to listen to get to know the music.
I despise the "music" of today. Hip-hop and all that nonsense. So do not discourage me from my passion. Music and most notably guitar music... I'm passionate about it.
To the others who commented in the thread, thank you for the lesson in theory!
I'd have to disagree with this, if you can write it that doesn't mean it's theory it simply means that you have noted what was done, or is to be done. There doesn't need to be any theory behind it.
quote:
If you can put it on sheet music, that's theory.
Meter and Rhythm are foundational elements of music theory, plain and simple.
You can write out any Compas using sheet music. That is theory.
Were the Compas in Flamenco originally created using theory exercises? Of course they weren't. But that doesn't change the fact that we can learn any compas we want by simply writing it out first, and then playing it by reading the notation. Is it better to listen to a player, when it comes to things like "feel"? Of course. But that is neither here nor there when you're talking about the actual elements of what you're trying to do. The elements are explained with....wait for it....theory.
What is not theory-based are things like Sabicas' particular touch/tone, or the timbre or inflection in the voice of Camaron de la Isla. You can't write those things out, you have no choice but to hear them yourself.
But for things like rhythm and meter, you can tie them back to theory, because that's where those elements fall, whether the original composers or players ever used them that way or thought of them that way.
It's like observing a culture who can speak a language that they taught themselves, and because nobody else knows the language but them, it's their own thing. But that doesn't mean we can't still say that they are using "words" and "sentences" and "syntax". And eventually we can break that language down and learn it, using those core concepts. Those things are as inherent to language, just as music theory is to concepts like rhythm and time signatures, which are what Compas are.
As I said, of course the Flamenco Masters didn't approach it from the classical side of theory. Neither does the average kid learning the electric guitar. Doesn't change that what they are doing is still possible to tie back to theory.
Technically, yes it can be done. That is to say, one could learn compas if it so happened to be written "correctly" on paper...and the reader was competent at reading what ever method was used. I would like to add that every "theory" class I have ever attended or read about horribly skimps on timing issues. I would say every student of "theory" first take some YEARS of marching drums to cover those bases as far as "reading" is concerned.
So we assume a competent student wants to learn flamenco compas from paper this way. Well, it turns out to be fantastically INEFFICIENT as a method of learning. Perhaps if already did the flamenco equivalent of the marching drum line, which is YEARS of dance classes learning all the rudiments and rhythmic language (yes it is a "language" whether you are in an american drum line, indian Konokal class flamenco dance class or whatever, it's verbal), then the written scores could be used. As flamenco exists currently it is NOT written in a "rudimentary" system or manner that all or most can agree on. In fact you will have top players and readers DISAGREEING on where the freakin "one" should occur in a bar. No joke, its f u k ed up big time. THere is a good reason it is messed up too, and it all leads to the same point everyone is making all along, you SHOULD NOT approach learning compas this way.
The reason is not about where you are born or who you hang with, or how cool you are because you are more or less gypsy. The reason is that different musics come from different DISCIPLINES. As hard as you might try to learn a certain style of music via a different discipline (such as bulerias compas written in a classical guitar style score, or a jazz chart form), it simply will never be any where near as effective a learning method as the ORIGINAL discipline the music was created from. The proof is in the pudding, just look around. Classical musicians complain, "i can't improvise..."....well, it is not part of the discipline of learning music so why would they? Jazz comping master that can play charts at sight, can't sight read Bach chorals. Different discipline.
Flamenco has a "school" and rather than try to circumvent the system, it is so much easier to just suck it up go through the normal training process. Why try to reverse engineer compas by deciphering half a dozen different written scores, all supposedly of the SAME piece of music, only after some years of discarding the bad and keeping the good, arrive a concept of "compas" distorted at best? When you can just sit with a maestro or group of flamencos and learn in properly in a few minutes? Too many try the scores and end up UN LEARNING more than they ever should have to. In fact it can be much harder and even disheartening to erase the mistakes. It is worth it to develop a solid BASE for compas as a beginner....it almost never happens with scores on a stand with "flamenco metronome" close by. It DOES happen very fast in a dance class, or with a group of flamencos that are practicing their art. So fast that it seems totally in vain to argue a case for any other inefficient method as being an acceptable alternative.
What i (personally) learned during all these years is that a student has two options to have a chance to learn the real thing:
1) Have the possibility to play together with other flamencos (teacher, dancers, singers, etc.) all the time. 2) Listen to flamenco music as much as possible and learn through videos (youtube, online classes, skype, etc.)
Option 1 is much better, option 2 works up to a certain level.
There is no other option.
Theory, paper... just as an additional help to learn some falsetas for instance if you can't see it or hear it and copy it properly from the video or audio ;)
Its not about ethnic background, gypsy soul, etc. It just does not work any other way.
All the jazz greats emphasise the importance of listening to the masters.
Some of them are effective on reading gigs some aren't.
Noone who hasn't listened adequately can play any style convincingly. And to my ear most recorded Bach is out of compas. But reading music is great fun and, when you hit critical mass, well worth the effort. And when someone pulls out a real book you get to play along.
And you CAN realise a flamenco score from scratch off the page. But that ability sits on top of all of the listening and study you have done IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE up till that point . Think of it like Shakespeare, if you have seen a lot and studied it a lot and someone gives you a newly discovered Shakespeare play and you have prepared a role from scratch successfully before then you are in with a fighting chance. If you have only a passing acquaintance with Shakespeare or reading or suffer from the misapprehension that the written word is a thorough phonic system then you are stuffed.
I noted that when Gerardo did his masterclass in London a few years back he had in his guitar case a tuner a metronome and a few loose sheets of handwritten manuscript (not TAB).
Nothing replaces listening.
I am not the biggest Stephen King fan but I enjoyed his memoir (which I listened to on mp3) especially the part where he said that the greater part of the work on prose style was in reading other peoples work.
Same with music the greater part of working on style is listening to other people who you admire. Reading music wont ever adequately replace that but it sure can help study as part of a healthy diet of listening.
this idea that compás is theory based is a bit like the arguments over the "correct" way to count or notate compás.
(rhetorical question coming up)
Do you count siguiriyas as:
1 & 2 & 3 & a 4 & a 5 &
or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
or
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
or
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
or
Un y dos y tres y morcilla morcilla
or da-a da-a da-a-a da-a-a da
or just play it....
....and do you notate it as one long bar of 12/8, or 12/4, or two bars of 6/8 or 6/4, or alternating bars of 3/4 and 6/8.....? and who really cares?
point being the bottom line is the sound of the music, and any theory or explanation of counting or notation comes after the event. The music is not theory based. The theory comes after the music based (check the "chord theory question soleares" for more of this)
this idea that compás is theory based is a bit like the arguments over the "correct" way to count or notate compás.
(rhetorical question coming up)
Do you count siguiriyas as:
1 & 2 & 3 & a 4 & a 5 &
or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
or
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
or
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
or
Un y dos y tres y morcilla morcilla
or da-a da-a da-a-a da-a-a da
or just play it....
....and do you notate it as one long bar of 12/8, or 12/4, or two bars of 6/8 or 6/4, or alternating bars of 3/4 and 6/8.....? and who really cares?
point being the bottom line is the sound of the music, and any theory or explanation of counting or notation comes after the event. The music is not theory based. The theory comes after the music based (check the "chord theory question soleares" for more of this)
No no, it's a bar of 7/8 on the Bb chord, and a bar of 5/8 on the A chord, I am sure of it.
No no, it's a bar of 7/8 on the Bb chord, and a bar of 5/8 on the A chord, I am sure of it.
I met a guitarrist who "played a bit of flamenco" which he "sight read [incorrectly] from the Juan Martin book" and played me his siguiriya in 5/4, with the "3&a 4&a" being two triplets!
And here you can find some nice exercises i posted on a similar request "were do i start"
It also give some nice standard compas variations of soleares, showing how to implement new techniques and rhythms within the basic framework, working yourself up from very simple to very complex in a gliding scale of experience/abilities.
Note that page has to contributions of my hand..... please check the first (upper) one.
this idea that compás is theory based is a bit like the arguments over the "correct" way to count or notate compás.
(rhetorical question coming up)
Do you count siguiriyas as:
1 & 2 & 3 & a 4 & a 5 &
or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
or
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
or........
point being the bottom line is the sound of the music, and any theory or explanation of counting or notation comes after the event. The music is not theory based. The theory comes after the music based (check the "chord theory question soleares" for more of this)
Actually in the beginning seguiriyas might have been played (even) less strict as we are used to play it now. The length of the beats originally might have been a bit more variable leaving it to the artist to decide which note felt like a new beat (some still play like that and are hard to fallow). This might explain why non of the great Spanish composers succeeded in capturing/understanding the underlaying pulse. Over time theory might have restricted/regulated that artistic freedom a bit so it might very well have been a 2 way direction.
The feeling is mutual, you seem to have quite a lot of experience yourself and i love your balance between knowing what it takes to become a master and knowing what fun it can be just to have fun with it without having great ambitions :-)
I've spent over 30 years studying music theory, composition, harmony, violin, guitar, recording, chorale, and toured extensively in orchestras, theater, and choirs doing everything from chamber music to jazz. I've performed more recitals than I can remember, and I began studying Flamenco with a teacher nearly 20 years ago.
wow 20 years. do you have a video of you playing flamenco? maybe a bulerias or something?
The comments I made about Compas having the ability to be expressed using notation and theory are absolutely correct. Is it "authentic"? Will you play the "preferred" interpretation of compas using only notation? Of course not.
So why would anyone waste their time with this approach? Also, people took exception to your comment about music theory.
quote:
If you can put it on sheet music, that's theory.
You will always be right as far you are concerned, but realize you are deliberately misinterpreting what others have posted to achieve this end. I can understand why someone like you would want to save face, but your lack of insight into your own motivations—while calling the motives of others into question—is truly sad and counterproductive. As for the internet being a fantasy world you are most likely the worst offender in this regard.
You start with the general and you work your way to the specific as the student gets more advanced.
Here is a phrase to try out.
Start with the specific and work towards the general, as the student gains more insight.
We would honestly all love to make you feel welcome and Eric in particular has given you credit where he felt able.
Now I make no claims to being as pleasant or gracious as Eric, but I will try and offer what I can......you need to slow down man.
SLOW DOWN.
You produced the phrase I quoted above, it has some worth.
I offer a different perspective in a similarly structured format. Does one negate the other ?
NO......NO....NO, it doesn't.
You have used some unfortunate phrases which do not suffer close analysis. That's OK man. We all do that. You don't need to defend them to the point of absurdity.
If you insist then .......fine. But it might be more fun for you to laugh at yourself a little.
I do it all the time, you see I am ridiculous, and I am just about getting to the point of accepting that it is OK if people notice.
Actually in the beginning seguiriyas might have been played (even) less strict as we are used to play it now.
when is the "beginning"?
listening to old recordings it often seems like in the 50's and 60's siguiriyas was very drawn out and free (Moraito interpreted siguiriyas very freely on guitar, and says on his Encuentro vid that it can/should be like that). I don't know, but wonder if this was the influence of Mairena, who I have been told was quite, ahem, "loose" with rhythm....?
but listening to older recordings from the 20's siguiriyas seems faster and more regular in rhythm.
as the "beginning" was surely before recordings we will never actually know what it was like "originally" but the oldest references we have look like it was pretty tight.
That's the romantic/fetish side of this art. And yeah, if you can get there, by all means, I encourage you. But beginners are not anywhere near that world of thinking, neither in the terminology nor the experience. So making these concepts unobtainable goals, and using only the most niche examples of terminology is what burns people out and gives them the worst possible thing you can give a beginner: self-doubt.
So we ALL might have felt that as beginners. But it's silly to pretend this simple thing is unobtainable (learning properly). Perhaps YOU my friend have heard it too many times and are not happy about it? (sorry man, you don't have it cuz you didn't go to spain, bla bla...). I disagree with the concept that not everyone is out to do it proper....every student of ANYTHING should be striving for excellence, not matter where you end up. I restate, beginners need to develop a solid base for compas. The discrepancies of existing notation methods are so numerous they negate your advice that whatever is written down will be undeniably "theory" and therefore correct and a good tool. Unlearning wrong concepts sucks. People have been down the path already, beginner's should listen to these people even if they don't feel a need to BOAST their bio and pedigree and advise "dude, just watch some youtube vids and get some tabs, you'll have fun and get as far as you need".
I disagree with the concept that not everyone is out to do it proper....every student of ANYTHING should be striving for excellence, not matter where you end up.
Absolutely true.
Learning to cook, fry an egg.......fantastically !!!!
Yes, the statement makes sense. And yet some will not be heading that way.
When I started out with the guitar I deliberately omitted any guidelines and didactics. Deeming it all much too complicated and time consuming it just appeared like too high a goal, and all I wanted was to generate some sound here and now. ( I am before all a sucker for the sound of this instrument.)
Only accidentally did I develop efficient technique, which was ruined some years later however after "inspiration" through watching Segovia´s plain wrong posture that I thought to be the right way.
Anyway, some beginners indeed start out with no ideal and level in mind. Only don´t ask how they might regret to have done so.
Anyway, some beginners indeed start out with no ideal and level in mind. Only don´t ask how they might regret to have done so.
Ruphus
Actually i was/am one of them. The first years of my flamenco career my ONLY focus in flamenco were melody and harmony which were so tastefully offered/combined by both Paco de Lucia and Paco Peña. I had no clue what so ever of the underlaying compas or the techniques involved (i played picado with the index only and that was still one of my better techniques). Whenever a new record came out i would not work it out note by note (or even listen to it a couple of times before trying to play some of it) i would simply put it on the record player, graph my guitar and immediately played on top of it. The only reason i was able to pick up the melodies/harmonies on the long run was the fact that between the age of 14-18 every single night when i was supposed to sleep i secretly put on my headphone and played those records time after time after time until i fell asleep with the record still playing. And as soon as i wake up (strangled by the headphone chord) my first reaction would be to press replay again, fall back into sleep again, put on the record again etc.... every single night between approximately 10/11 and 3/4 o'clock (at 7 i had to raise to go to school).
After playing "flamenco" like that for approximately 5 years i fell in love with Flairck and did the same with their records, playing/dubbing all the voices on top of the record, picking up sitar, bouzouki, banjo, charango, violin and basically everything i could get my hand on. In 1984 i bought myself a 12-string guitar and that was the first time ever i began to take technique a bit more seriously. I once posted "why the hell do beginners always try to play unplayable music, have you any idea how difficult this is?"... well, the very first piece i tried to figure out on my brand new 12-string guitar was this solo (speaking about unplayable).
Solo starts at 3:25
Still i managed to play it within 2 mounts and after i played it for Flairck (3 mounts after i bought my guitar) i was allowed to attend private rehearsings of new unrecorded compositions (were i surprised them again by playing the included brand new 12 string solo overnight myself).
1 year later i got the opportunity to join the master study flamenco guitar of Paco Peña at Rotterdam Conservatory (after auditioning with 2 flamenco solos and 2 12-string solos). I entered not with the intend to become a flamenco player but because i realized 15 years of self lecture obviously left some black spots in my musical pallet (over fixation on melody/harmony, zero attention for technique, tonal quality and rhythm) and i simply realized that if ever i wanted to become a decent player this was the time and place to do so. I would never ever have been accepted (nor had the desire) to become a conservatory student of classical guitar/jazz but the brand new flamenco department were every student was supposed to start at level zero seemed to be the ideal opportunity to become a decent musician after all. Like i said, i didn't enter with the intend to become a flamenco player, i entered with the intend to learn to play the guitar decently, to learn music theory and to become an all round musician. My long term ambition was to abandon flamenco afterwards in order to create/compose my own style of music like Flairck did. In 1985 i would never have guessed i would fall in love with flamenco cante and flamenco would remain such an important part in my life... nor that in 1986 i would become a chess addict "waisting" my conservatory years on playing chess 24/7 (which was a lot of fun as well).
The only thing i partly regret is that i never exploited my full potential. With the exception of a couple of tries in the late 80ties/early 90ties (that proved the sky is the limit if i really give it my undivided love and attention) i never really felt the inner need to give myself to music completely and as a result play at only a fraction of my potential which seems to be a bit of a waste of talent. Still i had a lot of fun with both my chessboard and my instrument, both at my very best moments as well in the period i really had no clue what i was doing.
Printable Version
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