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.
Mindful of the potential hijacking of this thread (sorry) and looking at the scale list above...
I think the problem of nomenclature is in full glare here. I made several mistakes too...
In the third example, Locrian#2 was an incorrect name to me as note 2 (D) is natural i.e. not sharp and not flat, which is why I called it Locrian nat 2. I also had the interval between note 1 and 2 in mind for some reason.
Of course the second note isn't always natural. Db Locrian #2 has Eb as note 2. Not E natural.
E Locrian #2 would have F# as the second note. Not F natural.
The interval between notes 1 and 2 is now a whole tone, but there's nothing specifically 'natural' about that.
I had stopped thinking about abstract chord intervals and shifted to the specific notes within a scale. A chord symbol tells you what to do with a basic chord tonality by alteration, not by naming notes. Let that be a lesson to me.
So I should probably revise this too...
quote:
Are you confusing 'natural' with 'perfect'? 'Flat' refers to the flattening of the perfect interval. If it is 'naturally' flattened in the mode, it is still a ♭5.
I now say, the chord type m7b5 is telling us to flatten the 5th of the minor tonality. It would be correct to say that although the 5th should be flattened it may yield a natural, like F (b5) to B (Root). The interval is flattened but the note may not be a flat.
Ricardo, I was put in mind of the usual school definition of melodic minor which behaves differently going up to coming down. That's sort of a phrasal intent in a way?
In my mind not really. Because, even in practice, we don’t see this often. Even Bach chacconne is like tons of descending melodic minor scales. The “school” of thought, as I remember, is after we learn how to do harmonic analysis with the major scale as the basis for tonal harmony (V being dominant etc.), we have to come to grips with the 6th mode of natural major scale, or the “Aeolian” as we have been discussing, which does not contain harmonic function the same way.
So, it is justified by making it into the artificial “minor key” situation–justified by the various mixture of minor scales. In other words thanks to natural minor scale having a minor iv chord, we can just use caps IV, as derived from the melodic minor scale. The harmonic minor changes the v to a V chord (making it artificially dominant), but so does melodic minor, hence you will see harmonies moving IV-V- resolving on i or minor tonic. (Harmonic minor produces the Diminished 7th chord, the melodic gives us an extra half diminshed chord, etc., all needed for tonal harmony analysis of minor keys). This implies the cadential harmony comes from ascending melodies that are altered (raised 6 and 7), and then after resolving become or return to natural Aeolian, regardless if the melody moves upward or downward. These desired alterations make the whole situation “artificial”. Normally all three minor scales are drawn in ascending order, and the teachers that insist on attaching the melodic minor to a descending natural minor being misleading, as they should be showing exactly the same for the harmonic minor, but don’t, and leave everybody confused that this is some “rule”.
Back to your scales, I am not sure how the synthetic pentatonics are very practical as there is no quick memory tool for them. In fact the whole thing about Mclaughlin using a single chord scale is that instead of having to memorize all the scales a single chord might use, you just know ONE easy scale all over the neck, and apply IT to various chords in a chart. Chords are much easier to memorize than individual scale degrees, so it is a lot faster and efficient as a tool for navigating a chart with improvisation. It is silly to me that due to the previous explained confusion about “melodic minor” scales, that some folks feel compelled to change the terminology to “jazz minor”, since it might be “allowed” to descend.
And last the german Bb and H thing, great post from John, which, if I understand correctly, LOOKS just like an American chart on paper, but the Germans will pronounce the actual chord symbols in unique ways (not literally type out those german words for C#m7b5). Here is an image of Bach’s musical signature, where the intersection of a single note with different clefs (moving clockwise from the left) spells Bb-A (tenor)-C (alto)- B natural (or “H”). Hence B-A-C-H.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Damn, that's a lot to take in. Am almost afraid to bring up F6/C...
In pop or jazz, you often find this minor chord or major chord that has a bass line walking down by step, creating different chords (technically) along the way. When in fact the concept is simpler, just a chord with a disconnected bass line walking around underneath.
Dm Dm-maj7/C# Dm7/C (your F6/C is identical) Dm6/B (normally Bm7b5!) Dm(b6)/Bb (normally Bbmaj7!) Dm/A (second inversion triad) Etc.
It is not practical for chart reading to use these changing chord qualities. Simple “Dm/X” is easier. And things like “Dm/B” might be contextually better than Bm7b5 in some cases.
This implies the cadential harmony comes from ascending melodies that are altered (raised 6 and 7), and then after resolving become or return to natural Aeolian, regardless if the melody moves upward or downward.
This implies the cadential harmony comes from ascending melodies that are altered (raised 6 and 7), and then after resolving become or return to natural Aeolian, regardless if the melody moves upward or downward.
Sigh.
At 8:25 yes exactly….great find thank you.
And as related to my above post, you see in the second measure the repeating D triad (ADF#) with the bass line moving under it (D-C#-B), implying the various “vertical sonorities” I was describing (D-Dmaj7/C#-D/B or Bm7).
Just what I needed - thanks for taking the time!!!
My favorite topic, even if a pet peeve.
You mentioned partial chromatic falsetas of Sabicas in another thread Left hand speed.
Scales and modes in flamenco are heavily discussed on the foro in the past. Particularly in Which scales thread I opened in 2019. Some youtube videos dealing with this topic have been uploaded since then. To me this video is the best.
To make sure I understood correctly, can you sum up what he said about Manolo Sanlucar's flamenco mode at 10:30-14:10? Any reason why C# (or generally speaking major 6th interval from the tonic) is not included in E flamenco mode?
To make sure I understood correctly, can you sum up what he said about Manolo Sanlucar's flamenco mode at 10:30-14:10? Any reason why C# (or generally speaking major 6th interval from the tonic) is not included in E flamenco mode?
The guy in the video (which is as old as your thread, at least while it was running it is that old, 2020, ie, not NEW info since those days), is trying, in vain to point out flamenco is NOT about scales at all. I say in vain because he has to reiterate in the comment section several times, meaning he was not crystal clear (see attached comments). He calls it “modal variations”, or “flamenco mode variations”, but what he means, and refers to Manolo’s book, which I can say I have finally read through, is that flamenco is not based on scales, but like I used to say over and freaking over, it is a KEY CENTER. The issue Manolo had – and many people don’t seem to understand because they have very little schooling– is that the main stream common practice period theory only uses TWO key centers (major and minor), and our flamenco appears to be using a THIRD KEY center, we call “flamenco mode”, and other people outside the tradition “wrongly” call “Phrygian mode”. This “flamenco mode/key” uses all chromatics, of which this guy only demos a few in context. The C# he skips is NOT DELIBERATE, it is an oversight on his part, leading to more confusion yet again. That note is the “Manuel de Falla” note every flamenco artist loves to use in context. Should have been D# in his Taranta example, had he used it.
For Manolo and others (if you read his book), the issue is that Phrygian implies a lot of baggage, and they evoke two “dirty words”:
1.ecclesiastical, and 2. Occidental.
The irony is that they (Manolo and other intellectual flamenco artists that have observed a problem nobody else seems to care about nor understand) are CORRECT for pointing out this issue (Manolo spends like 80% of his book ranting and raving about these horrible “schools” of thought, and how the Phrygian Dominant from the Relative minor is NOT what is going on in flamenco music), however HAVE NOT YET PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THE OCCIDENTAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL MUSICAL SCHOOLS THEMSELVES. They tend to think this is like some singular mentality and concept and teaching school of thought. “It” is NOT. However, hidden in that universe are some SIMPLE explanations, had they gone down the rabbit hole as I did, that would put their minds at ease. Since “occidental” and “ecclesiastical” are evil ignorant schools of thought in light of “flamenco” traditions, most will NOT be going down any such rabbit holes. I admit I myself NEVER would have either if not for some of these ANNOYING circular arguments about scales and harmony.
Long story short….the common practice period music theory begins at the Baroque and DOES NOT COMMUNICATE with the universe of the Renaissance music from which forth it was derived. Hence, nobody seems to notice that “flamenco”, which means “Flemish” as in Josquin de Prez and friends from early 16th century, had a system of MELODY and HARMONY called “Franco-Flemish polyphony” such that our beloved “flamenco mode cadence” was in full function and usage as “tercer tono” and “quarta tono” respectively. 3rd mode and 4th mode. Aka Phrygian and hypophrygian, distinguished by the TESSITURA of the main melody (cante range of notes, if you will, por arriba vs por medio) which ALWAYS descended AGFE (or DCBbA), however the harmony of other voices created “clausulae” or cadences as per sung texts, as seen in the Vihuela intabulations, etc., and still being done on GUITAR for these types of melodies today. Because the language used to describe this music uses solmization, clausulae, 4th tono, ficta, etc., there is a DISCONNECT talking about chords and such for these modes. In the common practice era, these two “church” modes collapsed into the DOMINANT of the “minor key”, forever lost as strong tonic identities they once had, and so nobody is willing to talk about any connections there. Romerito and I arguing about chords vs vertical sonorities is showing the LITERAL Mental barrier constructed there, in full force.
Flamenco in Andalucia is a fossile of those “Flemish motet” melodies and their cadences as realized between singer and vihuelist. The chromatic notes causing all the fuss are called “musica ficta” or fake notes (sharps and flats), the por arriba and por medio both included the Musica Vera , or real natural note music that uses Bb and B natural together as needed (Bb was not considered an “accidental” back then). The E major chord or A major chord are resulting from the Picardy third rule, and too many other rules still survive regarding the clausulae and modal sounds of the cante and guitar, but as you can see it is A LOT of exotic verbal baggage to contend with.
The Greek and Arabic etc., stuff is so far out of the box (see my video about desert camel cobra Arabian nights Persian music rant which is hilarious I posted not long ago), adding to the confusion, that I don’t really see an end to this argument about modes and scales, as long as it can be permitted to be invoked as an “ingredient” of flamenco music.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
in vain to point out flamenco is NOT about scales at all. I say in vain because he has to reiterate in the comment section several times, meaning he was not crystal clear (see attached comments). He calls it “modal variations”, or “flamenco mode variations”,
I believe he says in the video it's not scales, it's a mode as the name flamenco mode or modal variations suggests.
He also wrote that
quote:
In flamenco mode the dominant is a half tone from the tonic, in tonal music it is always a fourth.
I believe he says in the video it's not scales, it's a mode as the name flamenco mode or modal variations suggests.
What he “says” lead to confusion, hence the comment I screen shot. It is NOT Phrygian ie it is not a “scale of Phrygian nor Phrygian dominant nor a combination”. He said we have a “flamenco mode”, which is meaningless without context, and he specifically means as I clarified, a unique KEY CENTER, that since it is neither major nor minor, it is dubbed “flamenco mode”. In which case there is NO flamenco “scale” but a key center with a dominant to tonic function of harmony …. Which ties in to your next point.
quote:
He also wrote that….
Again, as I said, this comes from Manolo’s book again, where he claims the dominant function is reserved for the second scale degree, which according to his observation about GREEK modes (dorico), is a half step above tonic, ie, a “leading tone from above”. Then they give F major as the “dominant” for key of “E flamenco mode”. That is where my own ideas and Manolo’s begin to diverge.
As he and others are attempting to explain Flamenco music function, at least the palos that are “unique” in flamenco (Soleá, siguiriyas, etc., NOT Farruca or Alegría), via a translation into Western Theoretical terms, more or less, they make the same error everyone else makes not realizing the “Andalusian cadence” is not a legit cadence in Western music, it is a sequence of chords, and as a cadence F-E can’t really be done without parallel 5th making, which is a violation of the old “occidental school”.
They seem to forget how both por medio and por arriba both make traditional use of Gm-A or Gm/Bb-A, and Dm-E or F/Dm-E which IS A LEGITIMATE PHRYGIAN CADENCE FROM THE OCCIDENTAL/ECCLESIASTICAL SCHOOL. In other words, they actually don’t understand/know about the school that they are railing against. If they did, then they would see right away the old Franco-Flemish clausulae (cadences for mode 3 or 4) at work without a convoluted re-writing of musical rules.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread