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.
After the grave digging (8 years) to this moment, I don't think I remember a post where someone who knows theory implied that theory is needed to be good at flamenco guitar.
If that's your argument, you won. Just don't ask me who your opponent was.
I never understood the need that people have to come throw their feces at what they supposedly don't care about.
If theory is just crap to you, do you feel you've added anything insightful to the debate?
It would make sense if the topic was about "Is theory needed to play flamenco?"... but it isn't.
Yes I feel I've added the insight that I think listening deeply is more important.
Can you play palmas? If not harmonic analysis will not make you play palmas better.
I am not arguing, I'm just amused. And you have ruffled feathers quite often I notice. Perhaps a bit off line preening of your wings will help you put your hackles back in proper order.
The OP original questions: Let's continue.
Music Theory: Why?
Hehe ... The title sounds like some sort of philosophical book or something. But the point of this topic is to ask the following questions:
1- Do we need to know / understand music theory in order to be good flamenco composers?
2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"
3- Do the masters (PdL, Sanlucar, Sabicas, Ricardo [and by that I mean Nino, and not Richard - we already know he is a master of theory just by reading his posts with guitarbuddha and Romerito!!! CHINESE to me) know this theory? I know that PdL cannot read music, so I think he does not know theory, yet his compositions are super ... is that pure talent?
4- How important is a grasp of theory to be an all-round "good musician" or "good guitarist" or "good improviser?"
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
In case you didn't notice, Iam very amused.. probably not for the same reason though
In fact harmonic analysis can help anyone regarding the rhythmic aspects of music, being it palmas, strumming chords, anything really.
Harmony isn't just the "vertical thing". The horizontal placement of that vertical event matters just as much.
It looks like this thread is still relevant to you--but only as long as the distinction (such as theory versus no theory) is a simple one. You seem more than willing to share your opinion in that circumstance, but when the distinction is more subtle you seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to accept it.
I can assure nobody picks up a guitar because they want to become a musicologist. This is exactly what happens to so many people with college degrees in music. A few years ago a young virtuoso posted his impressions of college music majors who were studying guitar--most couldn’t “play” and were basically beginners.
Knowledge of music theory is critical in the development of many players, but theory should never be treated as a substitute for the ability to play an instrument. Too many people with degrees in music hide behind music theory and all this does is confuse the public—especially those interested in becoming good players.
It looks like this thread is still relevant to you--but only as long as the distinction (such as theory versus no theory) is a simple one. You seem more than willing to share your opinion in that circumstance, but when the distinction is more subtle you seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to accept it.
The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.. even though some of those unasked for answers have also been proved wrong and inconsistent.
That's exactly the part I find amusing in all this. Iam just waiting for someone to answer the "Music Theory: Why?" question with "You have to be born a gitano"
The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.. even though some of those unasked for answers have also been proved wrong and inconsistent.
It would help if you could understand the questions in the first place, but I guess only people who are "genuinely" interested in theory are capable of that...
For me, reading this threat from the first post, the only thing that seems clear is that what is call in Andalucia 'La Mala Follá Granaina" is an universal concept.
You might want to get back to your answer on this one:
2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"
You said it was "unlikely" when there's plenty of proof otherwise.
Unless you meant that Ramzi didn't know what he wanted to ask, I would say that you are the one (among others) who's trying to push the questions towards their own answers... and that might be because you don't understand the questions.
2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"
You said it was "unlikely" when there's plenty of proof otherwise.
I asked you for proof that anyone has and you did not provide any. Where are all of the uploads of music generated solely by the application of theory on this forum? Does the fact that there aren't any prove my statement that "it is unlikely" right or wrong?
I asked you for proof that anyone has and you did not provide any. Where are all of the uploads of music generated solely by the application of theory on this forum? Does the fact that there aren't any prove my statement that "it is unlikely" right or wrong?
Guitarbuddha answered that for you, didn't you read it?
You could do a bit of homework yourself.. maybe that's the problem, you assume everything you don't know doesn't exist.
As I've said, if you care for music go read a bit about it's history. Iam not going to look it up for you.
Steven, looks like some of the woodpeckers we have here in Arizona. Cute!
FWIW, I agree with Steven. It's about deep listening to the masters, not the sort of quasi-scientific analysis done by classical music professors. I mean, music is...
With the first path, you learn to understand and speak the language, same as musicians throughout thousands of years of history. With the second path, you get a sometimes-useful framework to describe what musicians already intuitively do. Sometimes that framework is abused to create disgustingly-boring harmonic exercises!
With the first path, you learn to understand and speak the language, same as musicians throughout thousands of years of history. With the second path, you get a sometimes-useful framework to describe what musicians already intuitively do. Sometimes that framework is abused to create disgustingly-boring harmonic exercises!
There are always two paths running in parallel. One for you and one for your luggage. A wise man keeps in sight of his luggage, lest it be hijacked by a gang.
Arguments based on personal opinions and taste... oh, so valid! That really clears up the "Music Theory: Why?" question. Now I know how the true gitanos composed their Bach-like fugues...and Schoenberg music is all theory crap so no one should care about that anyway. I believe he was no gitano either so that proves my point.
Massive confusion due to making something simple into something complex. A foro staple.
Trying to write something "flamenco" using only "theory" is like finger painting with a pencil. Why not just drop the pencil, and get your hands dirty.
To messy for you? Not clean and organized enough? Not predictable and safe enough?
The only way to have a good story, is to have experience.
Massive confusion due to making something simple into something complex. A foro staple.
Trying to write something "flamenco" using only "theory" is like finger painting with a pencil.
Exactly.
Trying to answer any question with "flamenco this & that" leads to that confusion.
I truly believe that the answer to the topic's question doesn't even involve the word "flamenco" but hey, let's all do some palmas and the answer shall arrive.
edit: To make things clear, I know that the topics on the original question had also something to do with flamenco and what I've been saying earlier isn't directed towards people who make the distinction.
My point is exactly towards the ones who immediately piss at theory and use flamenco as an argument for that.
Everyone is speaking of theory and practice as if they are two distinct things. They are not!!!
If you do not study theory FORMALLY, you will still have theories in your head. IT IS BASIC COGNITION. We can't function without analogy, metaphor, and other types of comparison that lead to basic theorizing.
Flamencos like Paco have formulated tacit theories. They don't articulate them in words, they articulate them in falsetas. To know that you can play a melody like this with a chord like this without knowing the names is still to have a theory about how music is put together. It is called tacit (hidden) knowledge contrasted with explicit or discursive knowledge (knowledge you can put into words.
THEORY/PRACTICE ARE A COIN. If you play music, you possess this coin. The question is, "Do you need to refine/translate your experiential theory into Western terms." Does your tails side of the coin need to be a Western theory. NO. But if you do study Music theory formally, your practice and theory will constantly align, evolve AND, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT to other people.
"How to tell a story" is a strawman argument. Obviously music theory is gaining recognition in Spain. There are already books beginning to hit the market. Soon we will be flooded. Some are useless, some are decent, a couple are good. Get this, THEY ALL TRANSLATE using Western music theory.
I suppose a better question is, should theory be a substitute for practice. NO. IT SHOULDN'T.
There are many who play only by tab/notation or by copying things from others. Usually they have no interest on coming up with their own stuff and their "aural" skills are pretty weak, they seem to go by no theory at all (tacit other otherwise).
Strangely, most of the people I've met who are like this come from the conservatory. Can't even play happy birthday without sheet music.
Also, this thread got sidetracked from it's former debate. Maybe we can use the new thread for that and come up with the best way possible to make people friends with theory when the "Why?" question arises.
The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.
...says the man who in an earlier post on this thread tried to create a straw man to knock down in order to fit his Met-Narrative by twisting and misrepresenting what his interlocutors said about theory: "Never heard anyone who understands theory saying that knowing nothing is the way to go."
His suggestion that contributors to this thread said, "Knowing nothing is the way to go," was untrue, but no doubt was his disingenuous attempt at laying the groundwork for the juvenile epithet he threw out at those with whom he disagrees: "...you're coming off as ignorant douches."
What an elevated level of discourse! To label those with whom one disagrees (whether over music theory or anything else) as "coming off as ignorant douches" says much more about him than it does about those with whom he disagrees. I don't think I've heard that term applied as an epithet since I was a high school sophomore.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
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