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.
Estimated (estimados) experts, I wonder if ppl might have some feedback on some analytical issues. I’m writing something analytical, and weighing the use of solfege rather than pitch-name descriptions. E.g., Spanish (and greater European?) analysts and flamencologists like solfege. Thus, e.g., a soleares, por arriba, is in Mi Phrygian, the iv-III-II-I/Am-G-F-E cadence is “la-sol-fa-mi,” etc., the G7-C cambio is sol-do, etc., doesn’t matter if a cejilla is used. In tarantas (let’s say without cejilla), now the iv-III-II-I cadence will be Bm-A-G-F#, but they will again call it la-sol-fa mi. OK, this is logical, and has obvious advantages, especially since mainstream flamenco doesn’t modulate much (though if a bulerías switches from por medio Phrygian to major-key bulerias de Cádiz, the “A” that was “Mi” now becomes “Do.”) But for me the problem is that I’m writing for a mostly American (and British?—certainly Anglophone) audience, and I think we Americans don’t know or use solfege much, except for maybe some vocal students. Correct me if I am wrong. I got a PhD in music from UCLA and I never learned it, and still struggle with it, though the syllables are handy in scrabble. Thus, when I play tarantas, wherever I put the cejilla, I am thinking finger positions, I am thinking “Bm-A-G-F#”—not “la-sol-fa-mi” (and certainly not C#m-B-A-G# if I’ve got the cejilla on 2). So when I use a cejilla, my “Bm-A-G-F#” is of course incorrect in failing to match the concert pitches, but I am still inclined to use that designation because I think most American guitarists think that way. Is this logic faulty? And another thing. I respect the Spanish flamencologists, some of them are my friends. (I absolutely don’t agree with the players who dismiss their erudition, although the flamencologists have not done much in terms of close analysis of singing and playing; this forum can be much more informative about such things.) But along with their preference for solfege (those who at least attempt to describe and analyze things), they seem to like to see almost everything in Phrygian mode. Thus, for example, in malagueña, or fandango, Am-G-F-E is again, “la-sol-fa-mi,” which is fine, but then if there is a Bb in the copla – as in various malagueñas (e.g., de la Trini), not to mention fandango de Lucena, they call it the “lowered 5th degree” –“cinco grado bemolizado”, or “V> rebajado”; i.e.,as if it is the 5th scale degree above E/mi, because everything is in E/mi Phrygian by definition. This I cannot accept. The copla is in the key of C major, in which a Bb functions as a flat 7th degree, usually accompanied by a C7 chord resolving to a subdominant F chord (V7/IV--> IV). It is not the 5th scalar degree of anything. But the flamencologists seem to be unanimous on this approach. Most of them are much more knowledgable than I am, but I think their approach is misleading. I’d be curious for anyone’s thoughts.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
Estimated (estimados) experts, I wonder if ppl might have some feedback on some analytical issues. I’m writing something analytical, and weighing the use of solfege rather than pitch-name descriptions. E.g., Spanish (and greater European?) analysts and flamencologists like solfege. Thus, e.g., a soleares, por arriba, is in Mi Phrygian, the iv-III-II-I/Am-G-F-E cadence is “la-sol-fa-mi,” etc., the G7-C cambio is sol-do, etc., doesn’t matter if a cejilla is used. In tarantas (let’s say without cejilla), now the iv-III-II-I cadence will be Bm-A-G-F#, but they will again call it la-sol-fa mi. OK, this is logical, and has obvious advantages, especially since mainstream flamenco doesn’t modulate much (though if a bulerías switches from por medio Phrygian to major-key bulerias de Cádiz, the “A” that was “Mi” now becomes “Do.”) But for me the problem is that I’m writing for a mostly American (and British?—certainly Anglophone) audience, and I think we Americans don’t know or use solfege much, except for maybe some vocal students. Correct me if I am wrong. I got a PhD in music from UCLA and I never learned it, and still struggle with it, though the syllables are handy in scrabble. Thus, when I play tarantas, wherever I put the cejilla, I am thinking finger positions, I am thinking “Bm-A-G-F#”—not “la-sol-fa-mi” (and certainly not C#m-B-A-G# if I’ve got the cejilla on 2). So when I use a cejilla, my “Bm-A-G-F#” is of course incorrect in failing to match the concert pitches, but I am still inclined to use that designation because I think most American guitarists think that way. Is this logic faulty? And another thing. I respect the Spanish flamencologists, some of them are my friends. (I absolutely don’t agree with the players who dismiss their erudition, although the flamencologists have not done much in terms of close analysis of singing and playing; this forum can be much more informative about such things.) But along with their preference for solfege (those who at least attempt to describe and analyze things), they seem to like to see almost everything in Phrygian mode. Thus, for example, in malagueña, or fandango, Am-G-F-E is again, “la-sol-fa-mi,” which is fine, but then if there is a Bb in the copla – as in various malagueñas (e.g., de la Trini), not to mention fandango de Lucena, they call it the “lowered 5th degree” –“cinco grado bemolizado”, or “V> rebajado”; i.e.,as if it is the 5th scale degree above E/mi, because everything is in E/mi Phrygian by definition. This I cannot accept. The copla is in the key of C major, in which a Bb functions as a flat 7th degree, usually accompanied by a C7 chord resolving to a subdominant F chord (V7/IV--> IV). It is not the 5th scalar degree of anything. But the flamencologists seem to be unanimous on this approach. Most of them are much more knowledgable than I am, but I think their approach is misleading. I’d be curious for anyone’s thoughts.
I agree and it goes back to my favorite line “different disciplines use their own theory system and terminology”.
Here, again like with romeritos dissertation blues thread, we have a conflation of two (or more) different systems creating a vague mess. I can totally clear it up but you have to understand several things.
First, either you or whom ever you heard those examples from are conflating solfegio (fixed “do”) with “moveable do”. Here is the difference. Moveable do is for MODAL purposes, but solfegio (fixed do) for TONAL purposes. I have never heard a Flamenco artist use moveable do in a taranta to explain the harmony. It’s not “La sol fa mi” at second fret. It’s simply, and ALWAYS, “si, la, sol, Fa sostonido”...PERIOD! That’s how it’s done, if someone used your description it would mean they are deliberately transposing the song form a Taranta into the key of Por Arriba for COMPARATIVE simplification purposes. Perhaps to make a student understand how ALL cante levantinos derive from Malaguenas or something super specific like that. Otherwise it’s simply WRONG to do that.
Next, whoever might understand what I wrote above wants to defend the USE of moveable do in context above needs to understand that the “La sol fa mi” is inherently WRONG, unless, again, you specifically are trying to show the relative major key relation (“Do” relative to La sol fa mi) in fandangos. For all other por medio/ por Arriba etc type functions it’s “Fa, mi bemol, re bemol, DO”! And at this point I must point out fandango should actually follow this same logic pattern such that the copla is either viewed as modulating to key of LA bemol (major)...or, at which point you have the option to move DO there, and pivot back at the end of the Copla such that the major key “fa”, becomes the “re bemol” of “do Flamenco”. That’s how moveable do SHOULD technically function for hybrid modal/tonal major fandangos forms.
Every system has an inherent logic to it. With the Solfegio that the Flamenco’s use, it’s closer to western ABCDEFG and it’s system of sharps and flats and key relations and the circle of 5ths. All major or minor key forms Of Flamenco are perfectly translatable in those terms. What is tricky to translate are the phrygian based forms, of which a proper translation requires an alteration to the circle of 5ths. (Add Phrygian key signatures to the existing major and minors, IMO the simplest concept. But there are two other options involving Roman numerals).
The moveable DO practice, done correctly, relates to American jazz discipline of doing away with key signatures and naming any chord or scale played a 1234567. Phrygian would be 1b2b345b6b7. The andalusian cadence then translates 4-b3-b2-1. But the tonic chord is 135...and in jazz like moveable do, you see you need at least two scales when interpreting Flamenco (1b2345b6b7 is phrygian dominant). In my mind this system is geared to modal improvisation or chart reading improvisation disciplines.
What music theorists seem to do is study a little of all this stuff and start mixing and matching however they see it in their head to taste. I’m guilty as well as I love Bach as much as I love pure modes and jazz principles, everything I hear goes through that filter. But it is simply no good for a clear analysis unless you spell out out FIRST a clear system that your reader understands and can translate to what THEY understand, in a sense make a special taylor made system, BEFORE looking at a single example of music. Guys like worms attempt this (as I pointed out in the “what scales thread”), and it’s a mess. I am always filtering out what some musicologist is saying all the bad theory stuff so I can get at the main idea. This was never a problem analyzing BACH in school. The system and music works together.
The last thing is the damn Roman numerals. Ok I admit I have only recently realized I learned a specific system (which is logically coherent and vastly superior IMO) and wrongly assumed it was the only way... but it turns there was once some dumb ways of using them that I can’t fault the users for (sorry, apologies to Romerito and others I assumed had fallen asleep in class lol). It has to do mainly with capitalization and secondary dominants. So 9 out of ten times Roman numerals are simply done wrong for Flamenco and jazz when I see them used. I can go into detail justifying why the thing I learned should be the ONLY way (probably from this guys book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Philippe_Rameau but it would take some heavy writing and examples.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
I can go into detail justifying why the thing I learned should be the ONLY way (probably from this guys book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Philippe_Rameau but it would take some heavy writing and examples.
Do you recommend his book (you didn't recommend it on the music theory book thread)? Or you just pointing to it as the ultimate source of the system you learned? And if so, is there a similar source for the "other" system? I remember you referring to, I think Tchaikovsky harmony/theory book - is that consistent with Rameau or different? I haven't read either, I looked up the Rameau book though via the wiki link you posted. Some funny reviews, like "It is like reading an engineering text book, but written long ago." One (serious) review said: "this should be read as a music theoretical-historical document. For those wishing to to study tonal harmony, consider a modern undergraduate textbook such as Steven G. Laitz's "The Complete Musician," or Miguel Roig-Francoli's "Harmony in Context."" I looked up both those but they have bad reviews (poor layout, bad proof-reading/errors etc.) AND really expensive.
Sorry if this is a thread hijack, I could delete it here and re-post it on the music theory book thread if it's a problem.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Ricardo, mil gracias for patiently—or impatiently, whatever—explaining these things. Now I see some things more clearly, including the lack of clarity inhering in some descriptions. Your post drove me back to some articles I have, discussing different estilos of tarantas, mineras etc, which I actually want to understand, and I appreciate that these particular articles have staff notation, which most flamencologists, bless their souls, seem to be allergic to. So, typically, it will state that tarantas is in Fa sostenido, like you say, but then for ease of comparison with other cantes the author notates things in C/E Phrygian (no sharps or flats), so that the Phrygian tonic chord is now not Fa sostenido, but Mi. Here, perhaps, is where some players will say that flamencologists are nuts. Anyhow, I can handle this – some estilo “repeats the phrase re-do-mi”, shown on the staff as D-C-B, OK, on my guitar that’s E-D-C, but then there is a “leap from V to VII”, and here my brain starts to overheat and I need a drink. OK, V, counting from E, is B, so leap from V to VII is from B to D, but on my guitar (taking sip of wine) in tarantas, it’s from C# to E, which I think of as from VII to high II in the key of D (if we think of tarantas copla in the key of D major, sort of, but let’s not go there right now). And the C-natural in tarantas is of course "V> rebajado" etc. Then pages more of this mixing up of solfegge, transposed pitches, and scale degrees and I’m wasted. There are a couple of things here. One is the use of solfeggio. Another is staff notations, transposing everything to the ‘handy’ key of C / E Phrygian, with the according solfeggio transpositions. Then, thirdly, counting all scale degrees from E. So in the copla of a fandango de Huelva, C is not any sort of tonic, it’s “VI.” Oy. I think there’s no ideal way to do this, but for transcription and analysis, I am with those who would transcribe tarantas in F#/D, and granainas in B/G etc. This makes it harder to compare the melodies of their coplas, but the advantages seem stronger.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Ricardo (or anyone), just to be sure -- are you saying that in your experience guitarists refer to por arriba Am-G-F-E as "fa- mi bemol - re bemol -do"? This would be a rather fundamental difference from all the musicologists, who call it la-sol-fa-mi. (Mind you, I don't give a d--mn, just want to know what communicates best.)(Doesn't "do" imply a major-key tonic?)
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
Ricardo (or anyone), just to be sure -- are you saying that in your experience guitarists refer to por arriba Am-G-F-E as "fa- mi bemol - re bemol -do"? This would be a rather fundamental difference from all the musicologists, who call it la-sol-fa-mi. (Mind you, I don't give a d--mn, just want to know what communicates best.)(Doesn't "do" imply a major-key tonic?)
No. In my first response I explained how it has always been done in my experience. You do it as fixed DO...so each palo that is in a different key has it’s own cadence different than Am-G-F-E which is por ARRIBA ONLY. I was clarifying how using moveable do WOULD LOOK IF YOU WANTED TO USE IT. I hoped it was clear, as I said it before, it is NOT used in my experience. But it seems some theorist was conflating it’s use with the use of FIXED do. Anyway you seemed to point out, I am not 100% sure, that the example you came across was exactly what I said would be an exception....They were transposing to a simpler key for comparison purposes ONLY, not for UNDERSTANDING THE FORM PROPERLY AS THE FLAMENCOS UNDERSTAND IT.
quote:
I think there’s no ideal way to do this, but for transcription and analysis, I am with those who would transcribe tarantas in F#/D, and granainas in B/G etc. This makes it harder to compare the melodies of their coplas, but the advantages seem stronger.
The ideal way, as I said, is at the front of your book or whatever you would clarify what system you are using and STICK TO ITS INHERENT LOGIC!!!! It seems that is where folks are mixing stuff up, and you are correct it’s a confusing mess.
What I would personally do is make two books or more depending....so instead of “flamenco for dummies” you make a “flamenco for jazzers” or “flamenco for rockers” or “flamenco for Classical musicians” etc....and you can translate the basic ideas using which ever system and terminology for translation. What I would be doing in each book is translating the actual FLAMENCO system, and all it’s spanish terminology including solfegio, INTO the proper respective system. It would be tedious to remove any cross mixing terminology such as saying “lydian” like I always do, in the classical book. Or “minor7flat 5” in the classical book should be “half-diminished 7th”, things like that. In a rock book, root 5th octave intervals moving by step would be “power chords dude!” Etc. Tedious but necessary IMO to have a correct translation of the musical concepts going on.
quote:
Anyhow, I can handle this – some estilo “repeats the phrase re-do-mi”, shown on the staff as D-C-B, OK, on my guitar that’s E-D-C, but then there is a “leap from V to VII”, and here my brain starts to overheat and I need a drink.
Re do mi is “D C E”. So, already you’ve got problems. Hopefully just a typo. A “leap from V to VII” yes makes not a lot of sense until you understand their system of roman numeration. I am guessing, as you did, if it’s taranta, they refer to C#m7b5-Em7 or vii half-dim7 -> ii7 in D major. (Please note that I feel it’s important to write the Roman’s correctly as Capitals imply major triads, lower cases minor triads etc). But Taranta changes keys LIKE A MINOR KEY PIECE OF BACH MIGHT. That means, I am dubious whether or not the passage is actually in D MAJOR at all, because those chord are not part of the copla. Hence, you need to understand first WHAT KEY ITS IN!!!! And right there, defining the F# phrygian key as tonic, resulting in the “V->VII” BS Roman numerals needs it’s own SYSTEM IN PLACE ALREADY....and such a system DOES NOT YET EXIST. As I said in first post....you can translate it to circle of 5th with either a modification OR, treat it as a major or minor key and be super duper freaking careful with your Roman Numerals. AFTER you have justified this new “system” that handles the relative “phrygian tonic of F# relative to D major key”, THEN you can start using the Roman Numerals in flamenco examples CORRECTLY.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Yes, great advice. Flamenco guitar certainly does accommodate, however awkwardly, notions like "power chords," or the tarantas chord is, let's see, "F#b9sus4." I do believe in the utility of staff notations, because they are useful for me, certainly more so than vague verbal descriptions, e.g., "tarantas estilo #24 is valiente and dulce, and can be heard in the 1932 record by José el Desconocido." I could envision, e.g., a companion website to Norman's catalog of soleares and siguiriyas estilos, with notations, and detailed brackets, arrows etc, "THIS melisma can be altered, extended etc, but THIS phrase must be present in this estilo..." The same for all the cantes.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
e.g., "tarantas estilo #24 is valiente and dulce, and can be heard in the 1932 record by José el Desconocido." I could envision, e.g., a companion website to Norman's catalog of soleares and siguiriyas estilos, with notations, and detailed brackets, arrows etc, "THIS melisma can be altered, extended etc, but THIS phrase must be present in this estilo..." The same for all the cantes.
Yes, you posted this while I was adding to my previous post, so please check that out. We are practically chatting in real time here.
So a 1932 recording would be an example of cante that you are reading about, not specifically guitar theory stuff. Since a score version of cante comparisons is not typically available, I would ask someone such as yourself, would you prefer to see the absolute key notation (as if to play along with recorded version on A440 piano, treble clef only), in the key the guitar is using to accompany, transpose with capo (probably Tarantas key of F#, capoed up to 5th fret or so, just a guess), or, transposed to no sharps and flats (E phrygian/C major) for comparative purposeS?
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Hey, I said let's not get into what key tarantas is! Would you believe, D major, except that it hardly ever sounds that chord, only D7?
<<Re do mi is “D C B”. So, already you’ve got problems. Hopefully just a typo.>>
Right, re-do-me is D-C-E, but the article notates tarantas in the key of E Phrygian, no key signature, instead of F# Phrygian. So a guitarist like me has to transpose, so the article's "re do mi" is, on the guitar, in F# Phrygian, E-D-F#. As you note, the decision as to how to describe, how to notate, should depend on one's intended audience. Absolute pitch? Guitar thinking? Put everything in E Phrygian/C major? Solfeggio? One uses one's judgment, but as I said, what I can't accept is to use scale degrees as if everything is Phrygian. Tarantas is tonally very ambiguous, but a typical malaguena, fndngo de Huelva etc is not, as far as I'm concerned. Copla is in the relative major key, a C chord is stable, doesn't want to 'resolve' anywhere, is not a "VI."
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to mark indigo)
quote:
Do you recommend his book (you didn't recommend it on the music theory book thread)? Or you just pointing to it as the ultimate source of the system you learned? And if so, is there a similar source for the "other" system? I remember you referring to, I think Tchaikovsky harmony/theory book - is that consistent with Rameau or different?
Let me clarify, I never used any theory text book. I simply understood the circle of 5ths and it’s relationship to any special terminology and analysis practices I came across in class (black board, worksheets, Bach Chorale examples, Sonata Allegro etc, all piece of cake). I now realize that the black board examples of Roman Numeration I learned, I thought were STANDARD, then baffled years later by people using all caps Romans or things like Romerito and others have done that look like huge fundamental errors in usage, are actually due to conflicting teachings back in 1800’s. And I couldn’t find a single example on YouTube of a complete MINOR KEY piece analyzed with correct Roman Numerals, and was shocked frankly.
This guy Rameau I linked to seems to be the originator of the system I learned on the blackboard and understand, and that Racist Shenker(sp) (see Adam neely video) and others, used some other versions of a similar idea (which frankly, if that’s how they do it, is flawed logically at it’s core but I must accept people that learn and use it are not at fault). Again, this is based on what I read about their books cuz I NEVER USED A TEXTBOOK for music theory. Especially a racist one ( ). I wish I could recommend a book but I can’t really. That’s why I recommended my teacher’s book, not a proper theory book but more general guitar playing concepts, cuz I actually read it.
OH forgot about Tchaikovsky!!! All that is about is that on Wiki, they have a description of Augmented 6 chords procedure of analysis. In regards to how THAT might apply to Flamenco phrygian palos, the quote they pulled from his book, CLEARLY shows he was thinking about the function of the chords the exact same way as my simple mind is working. I didn’t read his full book either, just going off the quote and his examples. Kitarist had pulled the full context of the quote in the “what scales” thread.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steelhead
Hey, I said let's not get into what key tarantas is! Would you believe, D major, except that it hardly ever sounds that chord, only D7?
<<Re do mi is “D C B”. So, already you’ve got problems. Hopefully just a typo.>>
Right, re-do-me is D-C-E, but the article notates tarantas in the key of E Phrygian, no key signature, instead of F# Phrygian. So a guitarist like me has to transpose, so the article's "re do mi" is, on the guitar, in F# Phrygian, E-D-F#. As you note, the decision as to how to describe, how to notate, should depend on one's intended audience. Absolute pitch? Guitar thinking? Put everything in E Phrygian/C major? Solfeggio? One uses one's judgment, but as I said, what I can't accept is to use scale degrees as if everything is Phrygian. Tarantas is tonally very ambiguous, but a typical malaguena, fndngo de Huelva etc is not, as far as I'm concerned. Copla is in the relative major key, a C chord is stable, doesn't want to 'resolve' anywhere, is not a "VI."
Ok got it. By the way you never said earlier “E-D-F#” which is what I was looking for so thanks. I am still not clear on the exact passage your situation is about, I would need to read it all myself, you might have missed something.
So what we arrive at, which I like, is that you don’t accept F# as a stable “I” tonic triad...especially since it doesn’t appear as a stable triad that you are aware of in context (F#7b9sus is probably the voicing you are familiar as you mentioned that), and most of the singing section is in D major. I also like that you understand C7-F in malaguena as V7/IV instead of as I7, because that gets at my issues with incorrect Roman Numeral usage and it’s inherent logic. Armed with that I might try to convince how Tarantas and all the other Fandangos forms function. To be clear, Tarantas is not special or tonally ambiguous compared to the others...you are simply being influenced by the guitar voicings....but at it’s heart it’s no different. I might have thought similar to yourself if not for the historic recordings malaguenas of Chacon and Montoya, who chose to accompany them in Taranta key, but I hadn’t heard them or noticed this until after playing flamenco for dance and such for years.
So lets do fandango and your C major is stable, “not a VI”. Great. And I agree. At least that section of the music. But the beauty of the fandangos is how it modulates back from key of C to the key of E “flamenco”, melodically, poetically, and rhythmically. Without the anticipation and understand of the overall arch of the “cadence”, well, it doesn’t even seem resolved musically at all. I have to tell you IT DOES RESOLVE, and the resolution is the equivalent of a Bach master piece going to relative major then coming home to relative minor for a final cadence. But it requires your brain to understand and familiarize yourself with that resolution and cadence and “fill in some gaps” and learn to accept the cadence...because it’s EXOTIC in western music terms.
In all Bach’s music, I only found ONE single example of a similar cadence. I am certain that that one example is looked at by theorists as an incomplete or half cadence type thing. To my flamenco ear it is NOT, although it is not the strongest cadence possible (basically he goes Dm7->E, but his upper voices use parallel 4ths F/C->E/B, middle voice A-G#, basically F->E cadence...however the bass note D->E avoids parallel 5ths that flamenco practice embraces). In the context of the Bach example (Link below, last “compas”), theorists might lean toward A minor as the overall “key”, however, the last line or compas starts in C major and moves through a progression that ends C7-Dm7-E or V7/IV->ii (deceptive cadence), then V7/vi...where the music simply stops. Because of ambiguity here, some theorists might point to the vi earlier in the phrase as establishing i tonic in A minor....changing the meaning of the ending to V7/VI->iv->V7...half cadence or unresolved cadence. And the V7/VI is same as III, but it’s altered to secondary dominant so III-iv-V basically. I have to say both approaches are DEAD WRONG. I admit it to be a unique case in Bach’s music but it stands as an example to wrap your head around before getting into the idea Fandango is NOT in C major ultimately.
So how do I view the Bach example? Well, the same idea that it was in C major there vs A minor holds and it can be ambiguous to OVERALL key center. In other words if you CAN accept that both sets of Roman Numerals can overlap (two correct interpretations), with the conclusion modulating from relative major to relative minor, almost, then what was your progression as III->iv->V in A minor, well it follows that the E phrygian interpretation would hold as VI->vii->I. And there you can see your “C is VI” in context, and in fact this type of thing is where those flamencoholics are getting it from. And this thing here is actually the CORRECT interpretation, not the A minor one I mentioned above, in this case. However it is also correct (and more so, or more complete or rigorous) to start in C major and overlap the ending like the first example (C:V7/IV->ii7->V7/vi...) but do an overlap of that with E:V7/II->vii7->I....and we sit pretty at a stable tonic I triad.
In our phrygian key we can have a bunch of cadences where in addition to II-I and II7-I and II4-2->I etc, you can have vii7->I and give each of those a fancy name based on their functional strengths. But we would have to FIRST JUSTIFY THE ROMAN NUMERALS AND THEIR USE for a phrygian key, cuz you only know major and minor usage. Since I have not yet done that, you will be dubious about this example and rightly so. But I swear that I CAN do that, and further, it is the ONLY correct way to analyze this Bach Chorale, as it is OLDER than flamenco itself, so I shouldn’t really call it a “solea remate” or something.
Now, if you still don’t yet accept my view about the key being E phrygian, NOT A minor or C major, let me defend my position that this final cadence is not unique to this little piece. He starts on an Eminor chord and the first line or “compas” has almost the EXACT same cadence (C7-Dm7-E). AND REPEATS THE LINE. So, no E-Aminor, he goes E->back to Eminor. So Bach is not joking around here, he wants us to accept E as “tonic” from the start, and understand he took us on a journey and came back to where he started. Just like Fandango and solea etc, anything “por Arriba”. And lets thank him further for putting this in a key signature with no sharps and flats!
So without going into how to do these Roman Numerals for phrygian, can you at least look at this piece as a “need” for something more than the basic major and minor key systems? I mean it sounds nothing like flamenco alone without my interpretation, but I am talking here about fundamental tonal concepts.
Just wanted to add a tid bit...Taranta used to NEVER (Ramon Montoya era) end (final chord of recording) on the dissonant voicing, always the stable barred triad. Same for all phrygian palos. Later on modern players liked to end on dissonances. It’s important to understand the concept as that stable triad as a “I tonic”, regardless of the theory approach.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Very good, agreed on almost everything. I listened to the Bach (with my pianist wife), it certainly is interesting, and I see the analogy, and agree that what I'm calling the "C major" fandango etc copla tonality ultimately "resolves" to the Phrygian tonality of the entrecopla, and that resolution is anticipated by the listener at some level. But then, any song or piece can modulate to a key which the listener, knowing the piece, knows will eventually modulate back ("resolve") to the original key. I've never quite understood why Montoya and Borrull et al accompanied those early malaguenas in (what we might call) granainas and tarantas tonality, when the por arriba tonality for malaguenas was well established and presumably standard, e.g., El Murciano (rondeña/malagueña 1840s) and Rafael Marin (1902). They were experimenting? As for my agreeing with "almost" everything, you write:
<<Tarantas is not special or tonally ambiguous compared to the others...you are simply being influenced by the guitar voicings....but at it’s heart it’s no different.>>
No, I am thinking also, and primarily, of the prominence of the whatever-we-call-the f-ing note, let's say, in toque de tarantas, with no cejilla, the C natural (accompanied by a D7 chord). This is prominent in Chacon, though I find the familiar "fandango" structure more audible in his recordings than in later tarantas, which slowed down, then they really stress that note, much more than the C-sharp that would be there if it were properly in D major. Whether we call it a flat 7th, or "V> rebajado", it's there in passing in malagueña de la Trini, quite more conspicuously in fndngo de Lucena, but it is super prominent in the mineras cantes, which is why I hear them as more tonally ambiguous than the others, and much of the jondura, musical interest comes from that ambiguity--perhaps as in the Bach chorale. You don't agree?
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
But then, any song or piece can modulate to a key which the listener, knowing the piece, knows will eventually modulate back ("resolve") to the original key.
Be careful with that type of general statement. Because it’s not about merely “remembering” how it started, which can happen in any kind of music. I am trying to justify and clarify for you (and anybody else confused about it) how the phrygian key is actually USING FUNCTIONING TONAL HARMONY to resolve. I am claiming that you are not hearing the function because you don’t understand it yet from the flamenco vantage point, and further, can’t intellectually justify II7-I as equivalent of a V7-I or V7-i from a classical vantage point because it’s too exotic. A Fandango must pass through the F chord in a special way to resolve to E...it’s not like you can go to E from C or G7 or Am or ANY harmony and claim “it’s in E phrygian cuz I know it started there earlier and I remember hearing that”....NO! The Dm7 Bach used works the same way as fandangos. It’s a special exotic cadence....it wouldn’t work there or in any kind of music to just jump back to E phrygian from any random harmonic point. And if you find music examples that do that great, but it’s not the point I have been making. You always need V-I to justify tonal harmonic function, period.
But I am glad you and the wife heard the example and find it “interesting”. I will take that as an open door for the next stage of explanation. So when you go from key of C to A minor, you know the iii chord, Em, is shared by both keys. The way you justify V->i in the minor key, is you have to ALTER the v (E minor chord shared with C major key) chord to V (change minor third G to G#), essentially BORROWING the V7 from the A major key, to force a believable and convincing “function” of A minor...and never again confuse A minor key proper for C major. I think you guys have the basics on that right? It is actually a stretch of imagination to do, but since you have heard BACH and company do it so many times, and understand it on paper intellectually, it’s perfectly ingrained in your musical ear as “normal”.
So when you are in the key of C major and want to modulate to A minor, no matter how long or briefly, it’s that iii chord that gets altered. The iii morphs into a V chord of a different key and you have V7/vi in C major. That is how you would view secondary dominants as well, altering a chord or borrowing it from some other key. So changing keys to relative minor is a SECONDARY DOMINANT function, at first. Correctly done you overlap if you change keys to A minor and continue in the new key. However to GET BACK TO C, you don’t need to do anything special (other than the same secondary dominant move overlap, V7/III-> III if you had established A minor), G is V of C and it’s also VII of A minor. At a certain point, you would have to decide WHICH ONE a G chord is pointing to, and label it correctly in context. So E minor appears and how do you call it? Either v of A minor or iii of C major, and that poor chord exists in such a state of superposition until you decide how to name it in context. So with this in mind, iii of Major is thought of as a special PIVOT chord as it has the potential to transport you between majors and relative minor keys.
So if we want to understand the relation of E phrygian to C major in the same way we understand A minor and C major, we first pretend phrygian can exist as a “key”. Next we see the relative major->relative phrygian pivot chord could be Bm7b5 (vii half dim, the 5th of E). We could alter it like we did iii by raising the third making B7b5, FOR the same reason we did it to Em for Am to function (G# creates tritone and leading tone needing resolution, likewise D#). However, this V7b5 sucks, so a better inversion of this chord inverts to F7#11 (no5th), so we see a version of the IV chord is the actual nice pivot chord between the keys, as it can function as V7 tritone sub. The IV chord of major is more than subdominant, it exists as well in a state of superposition bridging two keys, just like the iii chord does. The difference is: IV need NOT be altered at all to function as such, and it’s stable 5th IS a leading tone as well (C note re-included in the voicing...please note including the #11 in the voicing is the 5th of E, retaining strong V-I type function as the common tone between the two chords). However if we want to be super clear about it we can say you tritone sub F7 for B7 then resolve to an e minor triad, where the F7 is not borrowed from Bb key, but specifically from a special practice of Aug6 harmonic function (if you don’t like tritone sub lingo, so borrowed from A minor key Aug6 moves). So the e minor triad we treat with Picardy third for stability, same as we do in minor key often, and you have your functioning harmonic move and relative key function between C major->E major phrygian. To go from phrygian back to C we only need the G7, or the Em, and you have the same scenario as we saw going from Am back to C major.
So if you can accept the above LEGITIMATE harmonic function and relation, well then you must see how THIS is what happens in Fandango exactly. But we START in E phrygian. G7 takes us to C major key simply. And the pivot F chord that dramatically concludes all the fandango forms cante is functioning as the Tritone sub for moving BACK to E phrygian. Melodically Granainas and Taranto are the unique cantes that call in the Altered F7 (D# leading tone), however, the fact other cantes might use simpler harmonic clues in the melody doesn’t reduce the significance of the Functioning harmony. A guitarist can conclude with a strong F7#11-E for ANY fandango based cante at the conclusion. They often do that, but don’t even NEED to.
So if you can handle that, I can get into the C natural in Taranta...and not ONLY that but some other cool things going on even more sophisticated that old cante is doing. But I really need you to first understand AND accept the II-I cadence of phrygian as THE PRIMARY function of the song forms as a whole. Otherwise I am analogously stuck trying to explain what minor keys are doing to someone that ONLY UNDERSTANDS MAJOR KEY FUNCTION.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
OK good, tho your middle paragraph is tough going. Obviously, in Phrygian tonality (let's say, por arriba), the IIb-I (F-E) is dominant--> tonic. F is the "dominant" (and Dm could function as a substitution for it). In the fandango, the F at the end of the copla is the pivot chord not only between different tonics/"keys", but also between common-practice I-IV-V harmony and a kind of modal harmony. (So I'm not sure how to interpret your statement: "You always need V-I to justify tonal harmonic function, period.") Bach, I think we agree, is arguably using the Dm like an F, leading to a suggestion of the E major Phrygian tonic; I do think he is deliberately playing with the sense of tonicity there, using quite simple and basic chords--C, Am, G, E major and minor etc--to create an ambiguous and musically interesting effect. Ppl have written about some survivals of modality etc in some of his pieces.
Also not sure how to interpret: "phrygian key is actually USING FUNCTIONING TONAL HARMONY to resolve." It uses it, but the IIb-I cadence is the standard dominant-to-tonic move, rather than V7-I, though that is there in its way, in certain contexts, as we know. Tangos etc por medio, not E7-A, but certainly Dm-G7-C-F-Bb (so far so good, "common-practice) movement by fourths, iv-VII7-III-VI-IIb, but then the Phrygian/flamenco IIb-I cadence to A. The Phrygian cadence is not really present in common practice tonality.
I would like to hear your ideas about the C natural in cantes mineros. My inclination, as I've suggested, is to interpret the copla as basically in D major, but deriving its haunting effect and musical interest from avoiding that chord, obscuring it with D7, E7 etc. Noberto Torres says we should hear the guitar and voice as being in two different keys, tho I'm not sure I agree.
Not sure if this 'forum' has degenerated, as it were, into a conversation between the two of us, but I do find it very engaging.
(I haven't read it, £50 is too much for a book i am just curious about and might not follow much of , hoping a copy will turn up for a tenner so I can take a look....)
quote:
Not sure if this 'forum' has degenerated, as it were, into a conversation between the two of us, but I do find it very engaging.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Long ago I read and quoted another book, ""Between Modes and Keys: German Theory, 1592-1802," by Joel Lester, which mentions Bach chorales 19, 32, and 38 concluding on the "dominant" V.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
movement by fourths, iv-VII7-III-VI-IIb, but then the Phrygian/flamenco IIb-I cadence to A. The Phrygian cadence is not really present in common practice tonality.
Based on what we discussed first in this thread, I would have to scratch out most of your Romans as INCORRECT. Perhaps you were quickly notating for simplicity, at this point in time WE CAN’T DO THAT. You are conflating MULTIPLE MUSIC SYSTEMS by doing this, and backing me into corner. Just like in minor keys we don’t say “bVI” because we define the Romans from a mix of minor scales, YOU CANT SAY bII for phrygian. It is busted logic, and since we are trying to understand the system here which is exotic, we MUST BE RIGOROUS. Next you did away with secondary dominants you seem to understand perfectly fine, again I hope for simplicity but again LETS NOT DO THAT. I can’t really answer until this issue gets cleared up first so WE CAN BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
V-I has to be present for cadence to occur, and secondary dominant functions allow the composer to explore keys with or without modulation to new keys. Without this basic thing, you can’t have a key at all, or call it that, in the way Bach or Mozart were thinking. I am not talking or wanting to bring in other cadences yet, plagel and such. Modal music, modal “progressions or harmonies” are not FUNCTIONING progressions. V-I IS the point of Roman numeral analysis and why we must use secondary dominants. Modal music and tonal ambiguity are not the same concept. Or rather, we need to set up our definitions of “modal” from the start of the discussion. What I wish to do is set aside modality whatsoever and look hard at basic major and minor key music, such as Bach or Mozart etc, and the inherent logic of how that type of music functions, and the better system of analyzing that music, and then view flamenco music examples through that lens for simplicity and desire to avoid conflation of systems and terms that come from OTHER music styles. Everything those guys did reduces to a V-I in MAJOR keys, and V-i in minor keys (exception for single Bach example). That’s the basic page I want to be on so things don’t get mixed up. I want to show how flamenco music is not different than that, but instead of two keys major and minor, we use a THIRD key.
If you simply view your Roman Numerals above as if they were in D minor instead of A (FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY), and we “fix” your Roman Numerals relatively speaking, I think you should catch on to my point being made in that complex paragraph about phrygian. So if we pretend tango is D minor for a second we have YOUR progression example dm-G7-C-F-Bb-A:
i-V7/VII-(VII)-V/III-(III)-V/VI-VI-V.... please note the chords in parenthesis are to show the chords “resolved” but in this type of sequence each resolving chord is the new V/next chord in sequence. Because you did simple triads instead of dom 7ths (except your VII7), it would be ok to say VII-III-VI-V at the end, but we are stuck on an elementary example that misses opportunity to show a deeper situation about the progression which would serve to better elucidate how “baroque” this music is functioning.
More often we flamencos play this dm-G7-C7-F7-Bb7-A. So more colorful voicings, so that would look like this in Dminor:
i-V7/VII-V7/III-V7/VI-German6-V.... this time I didn’t put in the paranthetical chords VII and III or VI, because more interesting SECONDARY DOMINANTS enter the picture immediately.
If we look at the German6 (G#BbDF, in practice normally in first inversion such that Bb is the bass note), we note it goes straight to V, creating the parallel 5ths. This is rare to occur in classical music, (normally I6-4 avoids this problem) however...
IT IS ABSOLUTELY PRESENT IN COMMON PRACTICE TONALITY. For the record I found out Bach has one in his B minor mass somewhere and he does it like we flamencos do often, where the G# is actually in the bass. Regardless, this chord and it’s Italian or French relatives are FUNCTIONING AS SECONDARY DOMINANTS, in the bigger picture of the key (D minor in our case). Again, if you are being rigorous you don’t call these chords VI7 chords with the 7th degree misspelled. Same as any secondary dominant we name the V and the chord to come with /. But in this case, there was no PHRYGIAN KEY established so they had to invent a name for this “phrygian cadence” function.
Tchaikovsky says, in wiki quote, that the above Augmented 6 practice of naming or treating these chords as fancy named VI7-V moves relative to D minor (as in our case) as bull sh1t! He said what was REALLY happening was the temporary tonicization, ie modulation, to the KEY OF THE DOMINANT!!!! I will say that again, cuz I agree with him because I find the chord more important than basic secondary dominants in context, and EXOTIC relative to any others you use in D minor, IT IS A MODULATION TO THE KEY OF THE DOMINANT. However brief. Folks disagreed with him. From my perspective he was the ONLY person to understand it (though he viewed them as a sub for vii7dim7/V specifically, I feel tritone sub of V/V to be the same type of thing), and WOULD understand Flamenco perfectly fine in classical terms if he knew about it.
So from that perspective, we have the key of the dominant which is A MAJOR. If we want to modulate or tonicize the DOMINANT here, then the A chord becomes I instead of V. This is EXACTLY how we establish a “flamenco key”. It is a STRONG common practice functioning cadence, and it serves as the BASIS of all the phrygian form palos. And from the vantage point of I Being A, we can now look BACK and re-harmonize the scale (ABbCDEFG) with Romans: I(i)-II-III-iv-vhalfdim-VI-vii as a start and then the whole tangos progression as:
iv-V7/III-V7/VI-V7/II-spanish6-I. I made up spanish6 because thee Italian German and French examples don’t cover all the variants of the Aug6 we actually use in flamenco.
Please understand these Roman Numerals are just a starting point, and like minor keys, we need to look at other scales that come in and complete the Roman Numeral picture based on certain standards. For example in D minor viidim7 is actually a C#dim7 and I can’t do the little circle in place of “dim” typing. The same situation will occur in A phrygian key as iiidim7... so getting used to that stuff with minor keys we need to translate to the phrygian key as well. But in application it might be it actually is not iiidim but instead “viidim7/iv” depending on the context. That again points to BEING RIGOROUS and correct and not casual about the usage. I would go as far as to say A7 might NOT be I7, rather it’s V7/iv IN CONTEXT, such as Solea de Serneta or Frijones etc. The I only or most often appearing as a stable triad like Ramon Montoya used to do. Rigorous adherence to some system we establish will clear up confusions.
We could dumb down Bach music and remove accidentals and have some piece harmonized as a G triad moving to a C triad only. We can do that to Tangos above and end up with the “andalusian cadence” or, simply, Bb triad resolving to A triad. And we actually see that in flamenco practice at times. The simple fact we CAN spice it up with secondary dominant functions and explorations modulations etc (cante OR falsetas, OR simple accompaniment substitutions) without changing the PRIMARY cadence function of the music means we can accept this Key as it’s own thing, removed from D minor or F major, and have simple triads function, or complex chords function all under the umbrella of “Flamenco key” or “phrygian key” or whatever we decide to call it where II-I is the fundamental thing we are doing. Incidentally, trying to do this complex thing we did here with phrygian for other natural modes (such as lydian or dorian) fail. We have special situation here such that we only have this working for Major, minor, and Flamenco keys (Ionian, Aeolian, Phrygian respectively).
So next up Fandango de lucena and Taranto but I will do that separately later today.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
No, I am thinking also, and primarily, of the prominence of the whatever-we-call-the f-ing note, let's say, in toque de tarantas, with no cejilla, the C natural (accompanied by a D7 chord). This is prominent in Chacon, though I find the familiar "fandango" structure more audible in his recordings than in later tarantas, which slowed down, then they really stress that note, much more than the C-sharp that would be there if it were properly in D major. Whether we call it a flat 7th, or "V> rebajado", it's there in passing in malagueña de la Trini, quite more conspicuously in fndngo de Lucena, but it is super prominent in the mineras cantes, which is why I hear them as more tonally ambiguous than the others, and much of the jondura, musical interest comes from that ambiguity--perhaps as in the Bach chorale. You don't agree?
Let me first describe the situation, as I see it, with Malaguena forms vs fandango forms, with a Jazz analogy. There once was a song by Miles Davis called Tune up. His buddy John Coltrane took the tune and applied his new harmonic concepts by inserting harmonies in between the old simple ones. These “Coltrane changes” didn't’ change the overall form and structure of the original, but rather spiced it up in a horribly sophisticated way, because the new changes went away from the original key center and were crammed in there rhythmically too such that in order to navigate the changes and keep rhythm you had to be really fast mentally and technically. He called the new version “countdown” because the way he recorded was to ONLY IMPROVISE MELODICALLY with his horn, over the compas or drum beat. Alone. Palo seco. So you only have this tonally ambiguous sounding bunch of fast scales and arpegios. After a while the bass guitar enters doing the roots and walking through the changes showing that Coltranes melodies were not random chromatics in rhythm. Finally the piano enters and we hear the full chord voicings that his lines were earlier implying. Last he plays the head melody that he created to fit the new changes. So Tune up was Fandangos and Countdown is Malaguenas. There is a tutorial on youtube about it.
That was on the album Giant Steps. After Davis probably realized how crazy sophisticated this guy was getting, he made Kind of Blue where it’s just a D minor chord and one scale vamp stuff...the sort of opposite end of the spectrum to challenge these beboppers to re invent simple melodies.
So if we can equate the horn here to the cantaores, I feel that before the recording technology, some singers where hearing “other changes” inside the basic fandango structure, and using the voice to imply new harmonic movements. Perhaps it was more intuitive than intellectually approached, but for sure it was deliberate and not some accident or singing in the wrong key. But the flamenco guitarists either could not follow the changes exactly, OR, the singer actually wanted the simplified structure such that their “out notes” would be heard and experienced as such. A #9 for example over a dominant chord, implied by voice, or a quick 2-5-1 scale crammed in before the resolution chord of the guitar, etc. I feel the singers embraced the simplicity of the guitar voicings played and enjoyed their harmonic explorations relative to that. At least the “creators” whoever they were. Because by the time you have wax cylinder recordings, you already see people simply copying other masters before them and this stuff was already traditional or orthodox. Over time since then, guitar players with an ear for harmony, equally confused how these melodies fit fandango form, went ahead and tried to “fix” some of them by adding chords and such, that maybe they shouldn’t have. It’s like if Coltrane had instead envisioned superimposing countdown OVER top of the basic Tune Up song, and liked that sound...but decades later some piano players realized the other harmonies going on in between the old changes and reharmonize the way Countdown ends.
At least that’s how I am seeing it lately. Since it was before Wax cylinder recordings that this was created, it could very well have evolved from mistakes of some sort. In the end, I prefer to think of it as being simply more sophisticated than the natural scale melodies of Fandangos. And Chacon creations are along the same lines IMO, of course he models his creation from the orthodox already established.
So Fandangos de Lucena as an example. Fandango structure in C major (pretend it’s only C major) is: C (I) F(IV) C(I) G(V) C(I) F(IV) E (V/vi)
So please note the F is the pivot chord functioning as dominant to E, so we can actually look at the C chord as setting that up as E flamenco:V/II. Most players use C7 as well so V7/II-II-I is the cadence in E flamenco key. You wouldn’t do E:VI or VI7 with no justification of key change, at least I am against that type of thing. For that you would go back to C and pretend the entire copla is not a modulation at all. We can do that for Solea cambio but not fandango, the copla is too long in C, or rather we COULD but it’s not being as rigorous IMO. Most Fandango melodies use the natural scale, but guitarists are free to impose secondary dominants at anytime. But lets pretend there won’t be any passing chords so we can see the voice as being set over this simple structure as a basis.
So fandango de lucena Begins on the 5th G, then up to tonic note C, then down to Bb, drop to G, then a fast run A-G-F...stop.
Ok so That is the first line. The guitar plays E-G(or G7)-C. To most ears the guy is singing in F major and guitar should have played along, from the start, C-C7-F. The same melody is used in Taranto, both libre and for Baile.
I am putting forth that singer is cramming in those harmonies with the voice, such that, the final line there is not F to calling in the IV chord, but rather, the 7th of G. The guitar thusly is Answering this melody, G7-C. The creator of this melody wants the notes heard all against a G7 chord, so his notes create tensions 11th, #9, resolve 1-9-1-7, still on G7. Yes the #9 is the “bluesy” sounding note. I believe it’s intended as such. In fact if we play a G7#9 while the guy sings this, it’s perfecto. Even better, G11-G7#9-G7. That would match up. But we don’t have to, the G7 basic is enough and the rest happens with they guy’s melody. V7-I.
Now for Taranto (I am transposing to C for simplicity) we have evolved to do all these fill in guitar chords C7 (or C9/E with special voicing) to F, then do a MELODIC answer that implies G7-C. Those fill in chords evolved more recently, sort of as “Coltrane changes”. The Fandango de Lucena is the “tune up” chord version, the simple version. V6-5/IV-IV...V7-I, V6-5/IV...all instead of V7-I.
Second line is sung Bb-C-D-C-Bb-A-Bb-A...And it happens to fit perfectly fine C-F. C7-F is ideal guitar move. Incidentally, this is not what malaguena tends to do...here would be a spot that the voice might stop on Bb and not hit the A, waiting for the guitar to do it instead. So similar to how the tension work on the first line. With Taranto we do the C9/E again BEFORE the singer starts this. Then hold the F, but the singer often connects directly to third line (see below). V7/IV-IV. For taranto V6-5/IV-IV.
Third line is the same as the first. Typically guitarists don’t sit on F, but might pass through G7. Please note that EITHER can work in this case. I like holding F then doing a walking bass back to C as an answer. IV-(V7)-I. But then we don’t hear the lovely #9 situation, it simply sounds like F major. What Taranto does here is sort of connected (no breath between lines 2-3) so you don’t get to feel that F major territory very long, in fact many guitar players move through D7-G7/F-C9/E quickly after hitting that F. Again, unnecessary added Coltrane changes to match the melody rather than let those tensions work nicely like Tune UP. IV-V7/V-V4-2, V6-5/IV....
4th line. Here it goes Bb-A-A-C-Bnat-B-A-G (hold)-A-Bb...So, a pretty colorful one. Guitar just moves C-G. Or C-G7 is more typical, I-V7. What the voice is doing with Bb-A-A-C is imposing D7b13 (not #5 because A is in the melody). Then with B natural and B-A-G its the resolution to G. (V7/V-V implied, though guitar holds I). But then he goes right back up to the Bb you hate...it is again a lovely #9. Taranto cante here drops down to F# then resolves on G and takes a breath. So guitar does the D7-G and then a melodic answer G-F#-Fnat-E-F, implying a rested G7. Please note the Lucena melody of moving back up to Bb does not happen in Taranto. But it’s important to note the D7-G implications of both melodies. (V7/V-V7).
5th line Starts on G-A-G-A-Bb, but concludes like lines 1 and 3...guitar the Same as before, G7-C. V7-I. And again for Taranto the guitar crams the same chords except this time no answer G-C, just the F chord is hung here. In Baile it’s a dramatic C7-F thing on the “Ayyyyy” Bb note, which technically is the start of line 6 but it gets it’s own treatment for taranto. V6-5/IV-IV 2x. But also the set up for conclusion would be overlapped Eflamenco:V7/II or taranto E:V6-5/II.
6th line (conclusion). “Ayyy” is the Bb note then down to A, which is the signal for the Big F chord. V7/IV-IV. Or E:V7/II-II. The singer works the way down from A-G-F-E. Guitar does the Chromatic abandolao move to E. II-I. Singer uses fancy complex fast scale moves, the natural scale, dont feel like spelling those notes out. Chacon was of the few who had a couple malaguenas (Del Convento...) where this scale down resolution he touched on the Bb, and it’s quite bluesy over the F chord as we really want that E to come soon. That is the one note that we might almost hear as “b5” interval in our E Flamenco key, because it’s so close to the resolution and not functioning harmonically. Just check his ending, very bluesy. But for our lucena here and the Taranto it’s pretty straight forward natural scale. Taranto goes down to D#, so we get our nice Aug6 chord over F bass implied by the voice (spanish6-I or II7-I). Many guitar players make the effort to put that note in the bass with the singer. Some players even do a D#power chord thing (remember its transposed).
In the actual guitar key of F# taranta, this crammed Coltrane chord voicings that you constantly hear the ringing e and b and G strings etc, in the various voicings creates a thick dense aire of E dorian Harmony always present honestly. Like a drone in the wrong key. It’s the nature of the guitar tuning, so I like how montoya avoids it by doing simple things like full barre 2nd D major chord. Modern players have muddied it up a lot. But that is how flamenco has evolved.
So I hope that clears it. Here is the Fandango de Lucena (first letra) for a reference.
Also interesting to search Cartageneras in the Cante accompaniment thread. A similar situation where I notice the “Coltrane changes” of that cante are new, so I RE ACCOMPANY the same one I did years ago, like Montoya would have done it. Here is the “Tune up version”...difference here is the melody has also changed a bit (middle to ending) BECAUSE of the guitar evolving a new structure. But the first 3 lines are striking.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
"tarantas estilo #24 is valiente and dulce, and can be heard in the 1932 record by José el Desconocido." I could envision, e.g., a companion website to Norman's catalog of soleares and siguiriyas estilos
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Quick reply to Mark -- there is Norman's excellent website, with his catalog of solea and siguiriyas estilos, with audio examples and concise verbal descriptions, and then his magisterial and erudite book with Chaves on cantes mineros. It's hardly fair of me to criticize and ask for more, but as someone who is trying to get a handle on different estilos, to be able to recognize them, understand what sorts of variability etc can be there, I find staff notations to be indispensable, and I wish the Spanish flamencologists would condescend to using them more. I have several books and articles, where the author describes some estilo--e.g., a jaleo of Extremedura--in these vague terms and then refers the reader to some obscure and inaccessible recording. Then in describing some other estilo, it says that its third tercio resembles that of estilo #16, which itself is described in the same unenlightening terms. I find it frustrating.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Ah, I wasn't sure. I thought you might have meant a site like Norman's existing Solea/Siguiriyas site but dedicated to Tarantas/Levantes/Mineros. I know Norman's website, and have seen the book for sale, but don't have it/haven't read it. I assume it is similar to the website, but for different group of cantes?
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to mark indigo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: mark indigo
quote:
from the vantage point of I Being A, we can now look BACK and re-harmonize the scale (ABbCDEFG) with Romans: I(i)-II-III-iv-vhalfdim-VI-VII as a start
VII = G major? not G minor? I thought I was following this thread ok, but I am a bit confused now!
Yep you are correct... caps lock were on, vii.
In my mind I had the whole issue, like minor key VII vs viidim7 where C7 is altered to C#dim7, such that we also raise the root in Flamenco here G goes to G# creating a Bb7/Ab aug6 and how I was gonna deal with that but I was thinking better keep it simple...so good catch thanks for following along! . Also, in my head was that G7 in the tangos example I wanted to “fix”. Maybe you can be my editor? and you missed another error related to that I just fixed lol
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
To Mark again (it will take some time to read Ricardo) -- The book is a bit different from the website, which is mostly Norman's presentation of the Solers, with audio examples. The book goes through all the estilos of tarantas and other mineras cantes, based on old recordings, and catalogs them (e.g., 41 estilos of tarantas) and tries to reconstruct their evolution, e.g., this one seems to have been brought by so-and-so from Almeria to Cartagena, then so-and-so refashioned it with borrowing from local cante de madruga etc. It's very impressive, of course.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Ricardo, all very interesting. Tarantas, Lucena perspectives on Bb etc, good, though I think there might be different ways to hear or account for that “dissonant” passing note, including perhaps some survival of Mixolydian modality.
If I’m understanding you and Tchaikovsky correctly, I agree regarding the artificiality of spelling and analyzing the German6 chord, esp if it’s G# Bb D F in Dm, preceding an A7 chord. When I learned that theory in college I felt, this is stupid, it’s just a Bb7 chord, however you voice it.
But you seem to want to insist that the only kind of functional harmony is common practice, based on V7-I. I must disagree. I think there is, for starters, a whole kind of modal harmony, more or less common to flamenco and a lot of Greek and Balkan music, klezmer, “Hava nagila” etc, with F as the dominant of E (OK, we can say II instead of bII, which is redundant), temporary move to Am (iv) as a secondary tonal center etc. No need to kill ourselves trying to interpret this in terms of common practice harmony. Meanwhile, in much rock music there is yet another modal harmonic system, with chord progressions like E-G-A-B, E-D-A-E etc. (all major chords). So I don’t agree with this: <<V-I has to be present for cadence to occur,…Modal music, modal “progressions or harmonies” are not FUNCTIONING progressions.>> In flamenco modal harmony (as in Greek bouzouki music etc), F to E is a functioning dominant-to-tonic progression. Or maybe I am not understanding you.
<<But then he goes right back up to the Bb you hate>> I don’t say that I hate Bb, but I had some bad experiences with that note in adolescence. I discuss it with my therapist, would prefer not to get into it in this public forum.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
So I don’t agree with this: <<V-I has to be present for cadence to occur,…Modal music, modal “progressions or harmonies” are not FUNCTIONING progressions.>> In flamenco modal harmony (as in Greek bouzouki music etc), F to E is a functioning dominant-to-tonic progression. Or maybe I am not understanding you.
Yes, well, now you are talking about OTHER music systems and probably imposing the G7-C tension resolution concept of western Tonal harmony ONTO music that doesn’t need that to operate. (Not including that you have takin my V-I statement out of the context of Mozart Bach music system where I was clarifying that refers ONLY TO THAT MUSIC!) You jumped from Middle East to Greek to Rock music to point out V-I is not always needed. This is exactly the problem that arises with conflation of terminology that I pointed out is resulting in the huge problems you are noticing in flamencologists literature. It’s a mess. We need ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE, and it doesn’t always matter which one. But again, each musical system has it’s OWN terminology.
The Middle East music and Greek music is NOT EQUALTEMPERED, it is therefore stuck in a static MODAL condition. They can’t change the instrument tuning or drone mid song allowing the audience to experience that relationship between tonalities. They stick to ONE mode, inside which there exists only the tonic 13th chord, to pull in outside terminology for comparison. A 13th chord is a single scale stacked up in thirds, 5ths, or however you want, that creates a 7 note scale system. You don’t change that MID song. All that music you notice has cool “chords” that resolve to a “tonic” from some other place, well, THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE! Hava nagilal or whatever Greek Arabic Mid East Indian raga you name it, derives from it’s own system. Some of those I know a little about, but the BASIC concept is the same. There is no F chord (lydian) that resolve to E tonic (phrygian). There are NO CHORDS AT ALL, unless you interpret that music through some WESTERN Eq Temp INSTRUMENT like a piano or Guitar. In which case you are MIMICKING what was long ago before Bach, a MATHEMATICALLY TUNED SINGLE SCALE. That is why they have more notes per octave in their systems to account for the perfect tuned intervals above their tonics. But YOU CAN”T EVER MOVE AWAY FROM TONIC OR CHANGE IT in ANY of those systems. You can’t change keys or even go to a relative major/minor....none of that. All you can do is hit meaningful notes RELATIVE TO TONIC. All these different music systems exist in forms today that might have rubbed elbows with Western Tonal Harmony, and they fumble about with hybrids and approximations in Equal Temperment. Traditionalists of each genre obviously push back against that because the tuning issue is HUGE.
I was trying to limit our view of flamenco to ONE system, the Western Tonal one, of which WE MUST embrace the V-I concept because it is the one that allows us to justify changing keys. It just so happens that it also embraces Flamenco, to such a degree, I have to believe that the flamenco of today must have evolved from some baroque models of song forms.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
Well there may be some fundamental disagreement here. I regard the quasi-Phrygian/flamenco modal harmony system as a system in its own right, in which, for example F to E has a dominant-to-tonic function. No need to rationalize it in terms of Western common-practice; it's a hybrid that's been around a long time. Much affinity with what one hears in rebetika/bouzouki music, much Balkan music, klezmer etc -- no neutral intervals (can't play them on a bouzouki anyway, for example) -- much of it based, directly or indirectly, on Hijaz mode - E F G# A B C D (Jewish ahava raba)-- chords are E, F etc... move for a bit to Am, then back down, just like in Hijaz and Bayati Arab and Turkish maqams (i.e., to A, w/o the chords, and Bayati does have neutral 2nd degree). And the Greek songs can modulate comfortably to C major, then back to E quasi-Phrygian. This has been around for a century in the Eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, often with chordal accompaniment.
As for this brouhaha in music theory, re Schencker etc, and my own field of ethnomusicology, don't get me started. But since you did: It is sad that some parties, including friends and colleagues of mine, have created such a toxic and intolerant atmosphere that you and I couldn't even be having this discussion without epithets of "Racist!" and "Colonizer!" being hurled around.
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
quote:
Well there may be some fundamental disagreement here. I regard the quasi-Phrygian/flamenco modal harmony system as a system in its own right, in which, for example F to E has a dominant-to-tonic function. No need to rationalize it in terms of Western common-practice; it's a hybrid that's been around a long time. Much affinity with what one hears in rebetika/bouzouki music, much Balkan music, klezmer etc -- no neutral intervals (can't play them on a bouzouki anyway, for example) -- much of it based, directly or indirectly, on Hijaz mode - E F G# A B C D (Jewish ahava raba)-- chords are E, F etc... move for a bit to Am, then back down, just like in Hijaz and Bayati Arab and Turkish maqams (i.e., to A, w/o the chords, and Bayati does have neutral 2nd degree). And the Greek songs can modulate comfortably to C major, then back to E quasi-Phrygian. This has been around for a century in the Eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, often with chordal accompaniment.
Right, well since you want to go that route and don’t see the problem with changing your frame of reference to describe flamenco, which has it’s own system in place far removed from either “hijaz” nor “high Jazz” nor Greeks nor racist Germans, then please stop complaining about flamencologists methods, who are simply doing the same thing you seem to want to do.
For the record I was gonna clear up your issue here:
quote:
though I think there might be different ways to hear or account for that “dissonant” passing note, including perhaps some survival of Mixolydian modality.
“Survival” of mixolydian
Ok, I’ll just say that the Lucena melody, just like blues rock or jazz frame of reference, is imposing DORIAN over top of what should be a mixolydian chord sound. Like Bon Jovi singing “on a steel horse I ride....”. However I know from experience with and deep involvements embedded within the flamenco genre myself, that THAT is not a good way to approach it because there is a more accurate translation available. But in your case I’m not sure what is the best frame of reference to use anymore. Just accept that the flamencologists are probably not wrong or in error, you are just gonna have to learn to find a way to translate it to “mixolydian bazoouki hijazz” or what ever you seem to have mastered an inherent understanding of. Good luck with that.
Lastly, you didn’t agree about V-I being a required basis for tonal harmonic music to function. I would LOVE for you to explain to me how the hell in your mind you justify the practice of describing a chord as V7/IV or V7/V or V7/vi (especially that one) or any other such analysis of music. Was that thing something you learned and regurgitated on tests in school without accepting the logic behind it or what? Because I had operated based on the fact you knew and understood THAT, then frustratingly found myself trying to explain the reasoning behind THAT very practice. And you are not alone here, I find that a large majority of “theory lovers” don’t get it, or mindlessly apply it to taste. I really want to know honestly.
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Next, whoever might understand what I wrote above wants to defend the USE of moveable do in context above needs to understand that the “La sol fa mi” is inherently WRONG, unless, again, you specifically are trying to show the relative major key relation (“Do” relative to La sol fa mi) in fandangos. For all other por medio/ por Arriba etc type functions it’s “Fa, mi bemol, re bemol, DO”!
In a way, Steelhead's example is not even a conflation of movable with fixed Do systems; it is about what one might call "Movable-Mi". If it were movable Do, like you say the assigned note names of that sequence would have been fa, mi bemol, re bemol, do.
Seems clear the flamenologos were using this "movable-Mi" for comparison purposes; even if they did not explicitly say so.
To me the topic name itself seems to juxtapose concepts that are not quite what the elaboration seems to be about.
Solfege, at first, is just a way to assign syllables (easier to sing and remember) to pitches that otherwise go by ABCDEFG. A singer singing a pitch sequence with the correct implied intervals by pronouncing "sol, mi, sol, la, ti, do, sol" is the same as that singer pronouncing it instead as "G, E, G, A, B, C, G".
Additional information (by comparing to reference pitch, say) would tell if the singer is using "fixed-do" or moveable-do" system of naming. Or perhaps the fact they are singing "G, E.." would mean it is a fixed-do - unless they are using "moveable-C", meaning moveable-do but naming notes using the Latin alphabet note names (don't know if anyone is using that but it could exist, having the same features as 'moveable-do' with 'ABC' labels.).
Moveable-Do is more similar to the scale degree naming system (the Roman numerals), with an important difference. While the scale degree system always assigns "I" to the tonic pitch and movable-do always assigns "DO" to the same, the scale degree system does not assume information about the specific scale, unlike movable-Do which assumes the interval distances between neighbours are as in Do-mayor, i.e. C-major.
In other words, with the scale degrees system one needs additional information about the scale and thus if using it correctly people would not write b or # next to degrees (that info comes from knowing what the scale is).
Conversely, movable-do (movable-mi) carries with it the intervals between successive note names - which is why in movable-do one has to write the sequence as fa, mi-bemol, re-bemol, do. If it were written as fa, mi, re, do, it is wrong because mi-re carries with it the characteristic of being a 2-semitone interval; same for re-do; fa-mi a semitone interval.
Whereas in the scale degree system it is just iv-III-II-I (and then specific info on intervals between successive degrees comes from what the specific scale is, i.e. II-I could be a minor second if flamenco (por-arriba; por-medio) tonality; or it could be a major second if major tonality, etc.).
Maybe I am just writing this to make it clear for myself, but hopefully it is useful and/or invite corrections.
Printable Version
, hoping a copy will turn up for a tenner so I can take a look....) 
and you missed another error related to that I just fixed lol 
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