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.
|
|
|
[Deleted]
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
sonikete
Posts: 735
Joined: Jan. 9 2004
From: Sweden
|
 RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Gypsies are sometimes the first to to do commercial things that has a very flamenco feel but wouldnt be considered "puro" or even flamenco by traditionalists. And some payos study traditional flamenco like Miguel Poveda, Carmen Linares or Jose Menese and become very good at it and can be very "puro" from a traditionalist point of view despite the fact that they are not gypsies. And there are many spanish gypsies that doesnt have a clue about flamenco.
Its a very complicated subject because people define "puro" very differently.
Vicente has said in interviews that he sometimes does things that are more about his personal expression than about flamenco, but he knows the difference and when he is accompanying and play traditional palos like solea or taranta, i think he can be very "puro" as well, at least in the way i define "puro".
And i have heard some critique of tomates fusion things as "i dont understand that" from at least one gitano guitarist.
The way i see it you have people who thinks that everything a gipsy does is "puro" no matter how commercial it is, because he is pure gipsy.
Then you have people who thinks that a straight honest personal expression pure from merly commercial ambitions, inside the flamenco form, is puro.
Some people thinks that if you manage to imitate manual torre perfectly and still manage to make it a personal interpretation then you are puro.
And some people thinks that just because its old it has got to be puro.
And there probably exists a million other definitions as well..
But for me i think it basically comes down to the artist, if the artist transmit deep emotions that moves me and has respect for the forms and the tradition then he/she/it is puro in my book, traditional or modern, gypsy or payo, simple or complex, for me is irrelevant.
But i dont really use that term at all because it can so easily be misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 17 2006 18:00:04
 |
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Flamenco puro very simply is "the real thing". Agujetas thinks of himself as the only "real flamenco singer" left alive, except for Terremoto jr, and only because he copies his father.
So yeah it is personal opinion, but I think there are some standards. It is easy to put on old traditional flamenco and say this is "puro". Who disagrees? Modern flamenco is where people have a problem or get into an arguement. In terms of the guitar, I personally draw the line at the rhythm guitar interpretation. They technical way the guitar is strummed reveals a lot to me. The difference between Ottmar and Diego del Gastor. There is a reason Paco de Lucia and Diego are flamenco puro, though they are different, yet Ottmar is not. Something important and technical missing. Likewise there was a post about a guy on youtube teaching flamenco. One guy I said was more "authentic", but to be painfully honest, my true feeling is that one guy was showing "the real flamenco", and the other guy a facsimile.
In terms of Vicente vs Tomatito, why both are modern, but one is "gitano", is because Vicente plays on top of the beat, and Tomatito plays on the back beat.  Just kidding, but honestly it DOES have to do with the fine details of rhythmic expression. I have a vid of Camaron with Vicente, and the reasons for the distinction is obvious, though hard to describe in words. But Camaron still respected Vicente's different style enough to work with him. Sort of like Miles Davis using Bill Evens for "Kind of Blue", for all the tunes, except for the blues tune. 
Ricardo
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2006 6:07:42
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Flamenco Puro (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
Tomatito in his early days was pretty puro compared to now.
Well listen to the last bulerias on "paseo de los Casaños", or "En Casa del Herrero". As puro as ever IMO. Likewise back in 1980, he was jamming with Paco's Sextet on Spanish TV. The concept of puro or who is or is not puro has not really changed much at all. Tomatito was always considered "modern" as far as I understand it.
And you did understand the Bill Evens story and how it relates to the "puro" topic right? Just in case, or for others reading, the guys who played with Miles were all, well, African American. Miles brought in Bill (white guy with an avant guarde impressionistic style), and everyone was like "why"? You know like, he has a weird feel, or he had a weird modern style, and he couldn't play the blues like it SHOULD be played. But Miles needed or wanted to use what Bill had to offer, "different", but still good, still real jazz to him. They made recording history.
Just like "payo" and "gitano" or "puro" and not so puro. Hard to describe in words w/out being offensive. I find a parallel there, between Vicente and Camaron. Looking for something "different", but still good, still "flamenco". But not the same feel as Tomatito. You can say both are good, or "puro" but just your tastes allow you to prefer one over the other. OR you can decide that perhaps your own concept of "puro" is more clear than poor Miles or Camaron. 
Ricardo
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 18 2006 9:16:27
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
That was regarding some other topic, and you changed it. I don't argue that different people emote DIFFERENTLY, but what was being implied earlier was something about a certain girl COUDN'T or DIDN'T emote at all, and it may have had to do with her being asian. THAT was the crappola I don't buy, but sure folks emote in different ways. In fact that WAS my point. Her emoting was different and legit and it was not fair to say she did not have feeling in her playing. 
