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.
|
|
|
Syncopation in flamenco
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
 RE: Syncopation in flamenco (in reply to devilhand)
|
|
|
quote:
Actually you started this discussion syncopation or no syncopation.
Sigh. You wanted to talk about syncopation and used as basis an accompaniment that is barely syncopated at all, describing it as "syncopation everywhere"... That's relevant, because for one it suggests that you haven't yet mastered the most rudimentary aspects of flamenco rhythm if you're really hearing that as complex syncopation. And if you can't hear it, there's no point discussing the broader evolution of syncopation in flamenco with you (note that the only person you (sort of) listen to on this forum said as much: "It’s not really syncopated in your example"). As a general rule of thumb, it is absolutely correct IMHO to say that older, traditional flamenco, has far less complex syncopation than modern flamenco. But that simple fact can't be appreciated by someone who hears "syncopation everywhere" in the piece you posted. None of that denies the existence of precursors and artists who stood out from their peers by using complex syncopation at a time when it was not yet the norm. The treatment of rhythm has changed considerably from those times to the present day.
In any event, I'm done with this. Here's my proposal: from here on out, I will not post anything on any of your threads. You have my word. I ask that you show me the same courtesy and not post on any thread I might open in the future. On threads from other foro members, we can simply ignore each other's posts. I'm afraid that's the only way we are going to get along from now on. There's nothing worth salvaging here, so I think just ignoring each other is our best option.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 5 2020 16:24:26
 |
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Syncopation in flamenco (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
Just want to clarify a couple things. There is a general question, specific examples, and general confusion or misunderstanding going on. Of course it can get people’s blood going. I don’t think devilhand means to be so annoying about his questions and follow ups, the best course is to matter of factly state what’s going on and leave it at that.
His first question about traditional vs modern, I think I clarify in my first post. N ricardo. Before him I don’t hear it.
Next his example. The player is not doing traditional playing, he is doing things that only appeared in 70s by PDL and others. So the example is poor. The part in question (count 10-12) is actually synchopated because of the right hand formula...I kept this fact to myself earlier because I didn’t want to get into it...but the right hand formula is also a modern development. The resultant rhythmic sound is NOT syncopated but the feeling the player has is. That’s why I simply said “it’s not really”. Devilhand has a general misunderstanding of how terms “syncopations” or “polymeter” are used by musicians in general and I had hoped my alternative example would kill two birds. I was wrong, oh well.
The rhythm sounding staccato at count 10-12 is a common modern formula. Here it is:
9&, starting on & is rasg ami-i up Such that final i is upstroke on 10. Next pinky left hand mutes or inserts a 16th rest on “e”. Next i down stroke hits & after 10. That off the beat downward strike sets up a syncopated feel in the right hand, as it’s normally down on the numbers, up on the &s. And left hand pinky inserts a rest at “ah”. The reversed feel continues as i comes UP on count 11. Pinky again. Now i down on & but it’s not a completed stroke, just a bass note flick and quick retraction. Pinky again. Finally 12 is a strong down stroke with golpe, returning to normal feel.
So that brief right hand formula indeed has synchopation by its reversed formula up,down,up,down down. But devil wrongly thinking the staccato or 16th rests produced by the left hand were the synchopation which it obviously is not...and I didn’t want to let him get away with thinking I was agreeing to that wrong interpretation, plus the player (recording is 1972, paco using it late 60s) having picked it up from modern playing trends.
Next on the list, he almost understands the N Ricardo falseta synchopation...but then he carries it out to BEAT 4 Negating the entire idea it behind it, or rather proving to us he still doesn’t understand the significance of the falseta. We can simply pray he gets a teacher...perhaps paying $ for information will inspire him to listen to it rather than argue against it???
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 5 2020 17:15:42
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: Syncopation in flamenco (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
hmmm. You sure you gave the right time stamp? If you did, then at 1:29 you have beats 1, 2 and 3 played clearly, with one chord per beat. E-F-F, with the last one left to sound out more.
I hear the same thing there. He basically is really talking only about 1:26-:1:28, counts 9-12.
He is also incorrect about offbeat strokes lasting 4 beats; it is within just two - 10-11. Ricardo spells it out in detail above starting with 9.5 (i.e. the & after 9) the RH doing ami DOWN, and competing the ami-i rasgueado with i UP on 10, then i DOWN on 10.5 (i.e. on & after 10), and so on again for 11 and 11.5, but back to 'regular' RH at 12 and onwards for 1-3 at 1:29-1:30 as you said.
But in 10-11 we hear both the downbeat and upbeat rather than omit downbeat so to me this is not really a syncopation in a rhythmic pattern/meter sense. I get what Ricardo is saying about syncopation in a RH finger pattern sense, if one wants to expand the definition this way; though that certainly wasn't what devilhand was talking about when referencing the segment.
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 5 2020 21:02:50
|
|
aaron peacock
Posts: 141
Joined: Apr. 26 2020
From: Portugal
|
|
RE: Syncopation in flamenco (in reply to devilhand)
|
|
|
What I was essentially alluding to is that 2 & 3 are the basis of all rhythms in all music from all time, and as such, something like a 12 count will ALWAYS be alternatively divisible in groups of 2 and 3 in such a way that the notation will IMPLY syncopation at the point things goes crossways with the notation... for example Pepe Romero saying that it's a bar of 6/8 followed by 3 bars of 2/4 , but you can make any combo you like, and that formalization, however high mighty and well-intentioned it might be, is actually merely a collection of what the mainstream brains THINK the genii were doing, after said genii are dead and their music is dismembered, etc... naturally the grammaphone and youtube having altered that equation.
I hope that doesnt sound too arrogant of a claim, the idea that the musicians feel things and express them and that characteristic well-formed expressions of a musician in action are interpreted by theoreticians as fitting into x.y.z box, which they may perhaps do, who am i to judge.
I'm new here and I'm still in thrall at how multiple voicings of a Fa in a Solea por arriba sound like different (funcional) chords... I'm actually still in awe at how a I-II can be tonic-dominant in a world in which chords share so many common notes... sometimes it's important to step back from the theory and notice that open strings are being taken advantage of, perhaps even by accident by someone at some point...
but as I said, I'm new here, so if I am offending anyone I will appreciate a warning before a public denouncement as I literally mean no harm and am merely a fellow traveller appreciating the lore that you folks here propagate and guard. I appreciate your work. I know stuff about music in general, not flamenco, other than being a rather bad flamenco guitar player and an afficionado of good ones!
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 6 2020 2:11:03
|
|
 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 |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
