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.
I think Ricardo said before that it's confusing to explain bulerias in all its rhythmic forms by saying, you can feel it this way or that, and that etc. but universally it is in 3/4. He is right. I do think it's nice to know the rhythmic variations or feels. But also how they translate back to something fundamental, the 3/4 meter. Doing it this way might allow you to see how it fits together.
Yes, I agree that 3's or 6's are better to breakdown things instead of 12. The different "feels" or accents within a rhythmic pattern might not make sense if you just stuff it against the 12 beat cycle but the sum of those smaller chunks always come together.
Another example (not a lesson in how to count) is when you have a standard 12..3..6.8.10 etc being played with palmas/cajon and the guitar is playing full phrases in 6 without the remate on 10... but always comes back to a place where both the percussion and the guitar will do the remate on 10 and bang some compas away.
6+6=12, it doesn't have to be 6+5 (remate)+1 all the time for everyone. Another variation would be having 6+5+1 multiple times in a row, but again, the percussionist might be doing different accents, it just has to keep it's structure.
The same kind of maths applies to subdivision feels in general, 3/4=6/8.
interesting points on the subdivisions. ..because ive done so much odd meter stuff in my day, i find myself doing a lot of phrasing in 7 + 5 or 5 + 7 against two 6's...
The Foro had a very interesting 10-page thread on the compás of buleriás in 2004 (initially titled ‘Todd’s latest Bulería’) in which Estela ‘Zata’ insisted that the fundamental structure of Bulerías (and not just the Jerez style) was binary. As an example of her analysis (contested by other members) this is from one of her many posts:
“All bulerías is structured on twos. If you prefer not to consider it that way for whatever reason, the structure is still there, and there's never any need to beat your foot...plenty of older guitarists beat 1-2, 4-5...some beat 12...some let their feet waggle nervously. None of this changes the nature of bulerías in any way. It's either useful to you or not, but there is no way to separate one bulería from another in this regard.
I think the only way to see the inner structure is to listen to many recorded bulerías beating twos straight through, never lapsing into 3s, 6s, or 12s. It's very exciting when you see the elegant simplicity of it all.”
As a singer, she said, in effect, that this realisation had been an epiphany. She was then commissioned to write a long thesis on the subject for the Peña in Jerez. It hadn’t been published at the time, but was going to be. Did that ever happen, and has anybody read it?
ORIGINAL: norumba2 interesting points on the subdivisions. ..because ive done so much odd meter stuff in my day, i find myself doing a lot of phrasing in 7 + 5 or 5 + 7 against two 6's...
Looks like another way to think of shifting the accent on 6. You could also shift by 1/2, so in your notation 6.5 + 5.5 or 5.5+6.5. Shifting 6 to 7 is very common in other palos (alegrias, SpB). For my simple brain sticking to a 2-2-2 feel makes it much easier to shift accents without having to do math to stay in compas. But shifting accents is like putting icing on a cake, if there's more icing than cake it could get revolting for some - but that's a matter of taste
The Foro had a very interesting 10-page thread on the compás of buleriás in 2004 (initially titled ‘Todd’s latest Bulería’) in which Estela ‘Zata’ insisted that the fundamental structure of Bulerías (and not just the Jerez style) was binary. As an example of her analysis (contested by other members) this is from one of her many posts:
“All bulerías is structured on twos. If you prefer not to consider it that way for whatever reason, the structure is still there, and there's never any need to beat your foot...plenty of older guitarists beat 1-2, 4-5...some beat 12...some let their feet waggle nervously. None of this changes the nature of bulerías in any way. It's either useful to you or not, but there is no way to separate one bulería from another in this regard.
I think the only way to see the inner structure is to listen to many recorded bulerías beating twos straight through, never lapsing into 3s, 6s, or 12s. It's very exciting when you see the elegant simplicity of it all.”
As a singer, she said, in effect, that this realisation had been an epiphany. She was then commissioned to write a long thesis on the subject for the Peña in Jerez. It hadn’t been published at the time, but was going to be. Did that ever happen, and has anybody read it?
As long ago as that was you will find me responding same as here.... It's mother fing 3/4 she is talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Her response was "I never met a bpm...."
I would hate to prompt Ricardo to injure himself. No head-banging needed.
Other people’s realities can be interesting even if weird, loopy or just wrong. Many of the world’s tragedies can be seen as resulting from people trying to force their realities on others. When somebody has such fiercely-held convictions, however strange or mistaken, it can be worthwhile (entertaining, even) trying to understand how they acquired them. More so if they seem to have some relevant experience to base them on.
I would hate to prompt Ricardo to injure himself. No head-banging needed.
Other people’s realities can be interesting even if weird, loopy or just wrong. Many of the world’s tragedies can be seen as resulting from people trying to force their realities on others. When somebody has such fiercely-held convictions, however strange or mistaken, it can be worthwhile (entertaining, even) trying to understand how they acquired them. More so if they seem to have some relevant experience to base them on.
I totally agree different views are interesting. And even repetitive topics I don't have a problem with. The realization that 11 years later I find myself wrapped up in the same argument which boils down to basic math (2 vs 3 ) is more than frustrating. In the end it's the format and my own problem, don't mind me.