Flamenco guitar music

[Frumaster]

With the discovery of classical music I have pretty much ditched everything else.  But I still have an insatiable appetite for flamenco guitar.  I don't know what it is about this music...its so unpredictable and foreign yet seems to appeal to my most primal nature.    As far as I know, I have no genetic linkage to the people of southern Spain  .   I realize it is pretty much a tribal form of music, originating from such a small region...and I typically am unable to even appreciate such highly localized art.  Not only can I appreciate flamenco, but it is extremely potent and colorful to my ears.  If you would like to share your enthusiasm, please do so.  there was another thread on this topic under 'vocal and opera'...but I am referring specifically to guitar, as unaccompanied as possible (the clapping and tapping is fine, but much of the singing frankly gets on my nerves!).  My most recent discovery has been Vicente Amigo.... 0:)

[hildegard]

With the discovery of classical music I have pretty much ditched everything else.  But I still have an insatiable appetite for flamenco guitar.  I don't know what it is about this music...its so unpredictable and foreign yet seems to appeal to my most primal nature.    As far as I know, I have no genetic linkage to the people of southern Spain  .   I realize it is pretty much a tribal form of music, originating from such a small region...and I typically am unable to even appreciate such highly localized art.  Not only can I appreciate flamenco, but it is extremely potent and colorful to my ears.  If you would like to share your enthusiasm, please do so.  there was another thread on this topic under 'vocal and opera'...but I am referring specifically to guitar, as unaccompanied as possible (the clapping and tapping is fine, but much of the singing frankly gets on my nerves!).  My most recent discovery has been Vicente Amigo.... 0:)

There is the legendary Manitas de Plata and his gypsy family who are from southern France, not Spain. A truly treasured collection are his seven recordings made at midnight sessions in Arles in the late 1960s, if any can be found. http://www.vinyl-records.biz/DePlata_Manitas.htm. Raw, mersmerizing, and magical, this is truly Flamenco at its best. But, sorry to say, Flamenco without the vocal lament that accompanies it is like a story untold.  

This from the LP notes:

"Manitas was near to his home town, playing late at night to a group friends who were dancing, singing, and drinking wine. The performances have all the thrill and excitement of hearing music at the precise moment that it is actually conceived and composed....

"all flamenco is haunted by pain, and Manitas' black mouthed guitar uttered long phrases on unrequitted love and death." [life magazine).

It should be pointed out that Vicente Amigo's very fine guitar playing is representative of modern Flamenco and is very different in approach and tonality and is practically a different genre. The great Paco de Lucia is often considered the bridge between traditional and modern Flamenco.

[Frumaster]

There is the legendary Manitas de Plata and his gypsy family who are from southern France, not Spain. A truly treasured collection are his seven recordings made at midnight sessions in Arles in the late 1960s, if any can be found. http://www.vinyl-records.biz/DePlata_Manitas.htm. Raw, mersmerizing, and magical, this is truly Flamenco at its best. But, sorry to say, Flamenco without the vocal lament that accompanies it is like a story untold.  

This from the LP notes:

"Manitas was near to his home town, playing late at night to a group friends who were dancing, singing, and drinking wine. The performances have all the thrill and excitement of hearing music at the precise moment that it is actually conceived and composed....

"all flamenco is haunted by pain, and Manitas' black mouthed guitar uttered long phrases on unrequitted love and death." [life magazine).

It should be pointed out that Vicente Amigo's very fine guitar playing is representative of modern Flamenco and is very different in approach and tonality and is practically a different genre. The great Paco de Lucia is often considered the bridge between traditional and modern Flamenco.

Great, I'll try to check that out.  I do like the more traditonal flamenco generally, but an influx of other styles sometimes does wonders too.  Vicente Amigo's first album is his best to me, precisely for that reason.  The stuff with orchestration and middle-eastern sounding vocals is a major turn-off, whereas a little mediterrainean flavor is cool.  My first breakthrough to the genre was on 'Friday Night in San Francisco', with DiMeola's style of jazz thrown in.  I did like Cameron's vocals with de Lucia, which I suppose were more traditional...because there seems to be a trend towards that middle-eastern (or is it Indian?) sound since then...and it is this type of monophonic chant that drives me insane.

You are right about a lot of modern flamenco being practically a different genre.  Flamenco is supposed to have a strong, discernable palos.  When the rhythmic dominance is lost, the music loses almost all power to me.  Anytme I have to even question whether it is elevator music, its a bad sign because flamenco is supposed to be the antithesis of muzak. I don't think Paco de Lucia ever really entered this territory despite all the fusion going on, but the same can't be said for Vicente Amigo.

One last thing...why is flamenco not more popular commercially?  Did the music die before the recording age, in some sense?  I have heard that the music is meant to be lived, not just heard on a CD.  Yet I think the record industry has failed to capitalize on this genre for some reason.  There are only about 5-major flamenco guitarists you hear mentioned...and no extensive sets available.  Just your run of the mill hokey 'Best of Flameco' compilations.  I think the music deserves more.  There are labels out there that specialize in pre-20th century music that I think could make a killing, by finding new young artists who focus on authenticity.  With the use of recording technology and maybe some less-minimalist packaging, this is a genre I feel needs to be exploited further, maybe by some of the more cutting edge ancient-classical labels. 

[hildegard]

I did like Cameron's vocals with de Lucia, which I suppose were more traditional...because there seems to be a trend towards that middle-eastern (or is it Indian?) sound since then...and it is this type of monophonic chant that drives me insane.

Flamenco, as far as I know, is based in Gypsy tradition, but I also sense the Moorish influence, particularly when it comes to the vocals.   

You are right about a lot of modern flamenco being practically a different genre.  Flamenco is supposed to have a strong, discernable palos.  When the rhythmic dominance is lost, the music loses almost all power to me.

The rhythmic influence definitely makes a very strong statement in Flamenco. It is also what distinguishes one type of song or dance from another, i.e., rumbas have very strong rhythmic dominance when compared to fandangos, alegrias, etc.

One last thing...why is flamenco not more popular commercially?  Did the music die before the recording age, in some sense?  I have heard that the music is meant to be lived, not just heard on a CD.  Yet I think the record industry has failed to capitalize on this genre for some reason.  There are only about 5-major flamenco guitarists you hear mentioned...and no extensive sets available.  Just your run of the mill hokey 'Best of Flameco' compilations.  I think the music deserves more.  There are labels out there that specialize in pre-20th century music that I think could make a killing, by finding new young artists who focus on authenticity.  With the use of recording technology and maybe some less-minimalist packaging, this is a genre I feel needs to be exploited further, maybe by some of the more cutting edge ancient-classical labels. 

I really don't know, but I guess like a lot of folkloric music, it doesn't have mass appeal until it's taken out of its native state and infused with more popular and modern rhythms. The Gypsy Kings, a group of descendents of Manitas de Plata, have been very successful in merging Gypsy and Flamenco sound with today's pop sound and have even won a Grammy.

On the other hand, in his hey day Manitas de Plata played Carnegie Hall in NYC and sold millions of records. Through him and Paco de Lucia, Flamenco rose to more international prominence. Also, the character of traditional Flamenco is based on intimacy and improvisation, i.e., a small gathering of people or friends coming together to jam and have fun. They join in the clapping, the footwork, and make spontaneous vocal commentary; nothing is choreographed. Once you try to relocate that to a formal recording studio, the essence is lost -- one reason the Manitas de Plata recordings are considered so unique. They were done in Arles, Manitas's home town, in a local church, I believe, and the night and the music were allowed to unfold at will.

[hildegard]

Paco de Lucia is wonderful...I don't like those recordings he did with DiMeola & McLaughlin though, they're mainly for guitarholes. Found this beauty on youtube...and it works so well.

And he's equally brilliant in classical guitar as in Flamenco, which I think is a real gift.

[hildegard]

Well, when you think about it... it's not much of a stretch at all considering the piece...and the guitar in that is based on flamenco so Paco's right at home. I doubt he'd have such an easy time with J.S. Bach!

Flamenco and classical guitar music and techniques are very different down to the guitars used. Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez is considered a classical guitar piece, although I have heard that de Lucia wanted to infuse his interpretation with a Flamenco "accent." Flamenco guitarists generally do not read music, in that sense this was also a stretch for de Lucia as a musician.   

[Frumaster]

Well, when you think about it... it's not much of a stretch at all considering the piece...and the guitar in that is based on flamenco so Paco's right at home. I doubt he'd have such an easy time with J.S. Bach!

His technique is pretty faultless from an standpoint, so it would be more of a question as to whether he had the internal wiring for Bach.  Generally speaking, I think the guitar is ill-suited for Bach's music.  It just requires too much work to get the voicings right....I can't understand why people want to force the guitar to be like a piano.  Just play the damn piano!  Aside from maybe preferring the timbre of a classical guitar, there is no other reason for it in place of a harpsichord or piano.  It seems like classical guitar is what universities are pushing to guitarists...it is evidently highly thought of in academia, but who actually listens to it over a more authentic recording? 

Flamenco, on the other hand, is for me the ultimate usage of the guitar.  It is unashamed of the guitar, and exploits a wide range of the instrument's possibilities.  It can be percussive, rhythmic, singing, or have harmonic clarity for the staccato Bachian moments.  Usually you get a rapid exchange of all these elements within a single song, and thats really cool!  Guitar is the ONLY instrument that can play the guitar's role in flamenco, the way I see it. 

[Franco]

Paco Pena is really good as well as those already mentioned.  I too like this music and have collected several CDs of it, including one called Cante Flamenco which (I think) gives you a idea of being at a flamenco "jam session".

Cante Flamenco: Recorded Live in Juerga & Concert In Andalucia

[canninator]

His technique is pretty faultless from an standpoint, so it would be more of a question as to whether he had the internal wiring for Bach.  Generally speaking, I think the guitar is ill-suited for Bach's music.  It just requires too much work to get the voicings right....I can't understand why people want to force the guitar to be like a piano.  Just play the damn piano!  Aside from maybe preferring the timbre of a classical guitar, there is no other reason for it in place of a harpsichord or piano.  It seems like classical guitar is what universities are pushing to guitarists...it is evidently highly thought of in academia, but who actually listens to it over a more authentic recording?  

Two points.

First, his technique appears faultless because he didn't actually play the fully scored guitar part. At 5.55 of part two an extended slur passage is called for which Paco quite happily sits there and plays tirando. I didn't watch the rest too carefully but that is one example that stood out.

Second, no-one has to make the guitar sound like the piano to play Bach. The pieces for lute can be played quite happily on the guitar. Other pieces like the cello and violin suites can be played well on the guitar and I am not aware of any serious guitarist who has had a crack at keyboard works on the guitar (I could be wrong on that so please correct me)

[Frumaster]

Where have you been? Go to youtube for instance, you'll find all sorts of guitarists playing all kinds of Bach, including many keyboard things. Something ESPECIALLY guitarists should be doing more of to increase-advance their own musical vocabulary, as the musicianship amoungst them is generally quite low & inbred.

Yes, I'm aware of the guitar's popularity  .  But how many classical music enthusiasts (non-musicians) choose to play a classical guitar recording of a Bach piece?  I think it is great that people use classical guitar as a means for increasing their formal musical training...but I view it as an appropriate means for expanding one's virtuoso musicianship rather than the end product. 

[bwv 1080]

Yes, I'm aware of the guitar's popularity  .  But how many classical music enthusiasts (non-musicians) choose to play a classical guitar recording of a Bach piece?  I think it is great that people use classical guitar as a means for increasing their formal musical training...but I view it as an appropriate means for expanding one's virtuoso musicianship rather than the end product. 

I guess Bach should not have written for the lute then

[Frumaster]

I guess Bach should not have written for the lute then

Of course he should have, and those pieces should be played on a lute.  Everything in its place  0:).  The only discrepancy regarding Bach's instrumentation should be centered around recreating the period sound as much as we can.  Bach had no problem transcribing many of his pieces for different instruments, which may lead one to think that instrumentation didn't matter all that much to him.  Still, how much liberty should WE take regarding his music?  His occasonal wavering does not give us the right to bastardize the music by whatever means we wish.  Maybe he would approve, maybe he wouldn't.....the point is that we know Bach was satisfied by his final instrumental intentions, and hopefully that is good enough.  I trust Bach's judgement.

[bwv 1080]

Of course he should have, and those pieces should be played on a lute.  Everything in its place  0:).  The only discrepancy regarding Bach's instrumentation should be centered around recreating the period sound as much as we can.  Bach had no problem transcribing many of his pieces for different instruments, which may lead one to think that instrumentation didn't matter all that much to him.  Still, how much liberty should WE take regarding his music?  His occasonal wavering does not give us the right to bastardize the music by whatever means we wish.  Maybe he would approve, maybe he wouldn't.....the point is that we know Bach was satisfied by his final instrumental intentions, and hopefully that is good enough.  I trust Bach's judgement.

So you are against playing Bach on the piano?

[Frumaster]

So you are against playing Bach on the piano?

Thats a tough one for me because the piano has been linked to concert music for so long.  So much concert music has been written specifically for the piano that I think it has gained undeniable credibility as a keyboard instrument, and can therefore be a substitute for the harpsichord as long as the pianist does not exploit the instrument's more modern abilities too much.  I am not 'against' the guitar for Bach's music either, I just think period-instrumental performances should be considered first and foremost.

James, it is great that musicians approach Bach for personal insights regardless of their instrument.  But for simply experiencing Bach's music as a listener, the guitar falls short of Bach's intent, and is far more revolutionary of a change in instrumentation than from period instruments to their natural modern sucessors. 

Lastly, the guitar's popularity has surged for reasons outside the realm of classical music.  An attempt to bend Baroque music to the will of the guitar is more in celebration of the guitar and the musician's abilities than of the music itself.  On the other hand, guitar is the essence of flamenco, and their temperaments are more naturally suited for one another.  Just the way I see it...I'm not telling you that you can't enjoy classical guitar!

[bwv 1080]

but there is such a thing as period baroque guitar music

and there are several Scarlatti sonatas that are more idiomatic on guitar than on piano or harpsichord

the modern guitar is more like its Baroque counterparts than the piano

that said, much of Bach is ackward on guitar and one of the lute suites was probably written for the lautenwerck.  The cello and violin suites work well though, as the texture (with filling in some of the implied harmonies) is more idiomatic

[DavidRoss]

Just the way I see it...I'm not telling you that you can't enjoy classical guitar!

That's good.  But, FYI, when you say that the guitar is unsuited to Bach's music, your credibility suffers.  You may hold prejudices that prevent you from recognizing how beautiful some of Bach's music can be when played on this uniquely expressive instrument, but to imagine that such prejudices reflect some objective reality is a mistake.

[canninator]

Where have you been? Go to youtube for instance, you'll find all sorts of guitarists playing all kinds of Bach, including many keyboard things. Something ESPECIALLY guitarists should be doing more of to increase-advance their own musical vocabulary, as the musicianship amoungst them is generally quite low & inbred.

I probably didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that I was not sure whether there were any recording professionals who had seriously looked at transposing the Bach keyboard works for guitar. I know its been done with varying degrees of success but honestly haven't listened to them enough to comment any more.

I'm not sure why you think Bach is a prerequisite for guitarists to increase their musical vocabulary. Guitarists, on the whole, have done a magnificent job of avoiding the huge Baroque repertoire that already exists for the 5 string instrument. One of the main problems in accessing this repertoire is that you rely on either 1) learning tablature that can vary from author to author or 2) rely on pre-exisiting transcriptions which, quite frankly, can be downright awful. For example, they often take no account of reentrant tuning, very popular in the Baroque, which gives the lovely campanella sound.

Anyway, I think the main problem with serious guitarists is not their lack of a musical vocabulary (not sure where you got that from) but that they are very poor in ensemble.

[bwv 1080]

*Case & point: TABLATURE??? LOLOLOLOL (one of the contributing factors - and all crummy guitar mags include, it's a LAZY short-cut)

I think he is talking about Baroque lute & guitar tablature.  The original BWV 999 is in tablature form as is most of the baroque guitar repertoire

[canninator]

yea i know, but i was addressing tab today and how many guitarists rely on just that, and how music publications support it, it's a horrible practice. it's one of the reasons why so many guitarists are pretty low on the food chain musically speaking, that and they just listen to guitar players and play well, 'guitar shit'.

I agree completely but surely you can't be referring to classical guitarists? Tabulation in contemporary guitar (as I understand it) is pretty much restricted to popular music (maybe jazz) not classical. You can't even buy the classical repertoire in tab (although a search through the Mel Bat catalogue or the intarwebs might change my mind).

But....Baroque tablature was a very useful system of notation, as was alfabeto, and idiomatic for the guitar/lute (but wasn't used because Baroque guitarists were bottom feeders). The details vary depending upon whether it was German, French, or Italian tab but it does not differ much from modern tab. Just so long as the author provides a tuning for the guitar (essential as most guitarist composers used a variety of tunings) it was easy to follow so long as rhythmic indications are given over the tab. The clear advantage of this is that there is no confusion over the string to play, the clear disadvantage is that note lengths can be ambiguous (although the modern interpretation is just to let things ring through as long as possible).

Baroque tab of course was doomed to fail, particularly with the increasing use of the guitar as an ensemble instrument, providing the high voice or continuo. Guitarists had to fall in line with everyone else. I'm not sure why modern tab exists-you can't read any other music, standard notation isn't hard anyway, and you cannot play in ensemble.

Bottom line, I pretty much agree.

[hildegard]

The guitar in that is certainly based on flamenco techniques it's just written out, Paco never really infused much other than his personal style, and in fact it's a more authentic interpretation of the piece (Rodrigo's fave) because Paco himself is rooted in spanish music & flamenco obviously (as is the piece essentially). Bach & other classical guitar (that's not spanish) is an entirely different bag.

Interesting observations. I think there are some people who do allude to the more Spanish sounding overtones in Concierto de Aranjuez as flamenco-like. But among classical guitarists, particularly in Spain, there has been a clear like of demarcation between what is considered classical guitar repertoire and what is not. At the time of the Paco de Lucia project, there was great discussion among that community as to how much of an intrusion into classical guitar world de Lucia's interpretation represented. De Lucia had already been the object of such criticism in the 70s for his interpretation of some of de Falla's works. At the time, Segovia was among his harshest critics. In terms of Aranjuez, it was Narciso Yepes who was most ascerbic, going as far as saying: "Es terrible. …Paco de Lucía , que es un guitarrista flamenco fenomenal, no tiene técnica para tocar ese concierto…." Yepes himself was criticized for what many saw as professional jealousy. But it should be remembered that it was Yepes, with his 10-string guitar who put Aranjuez on the international map to begin with and was considered by most the reigning master of the Aranjuez concierto.  But regardless of which side of the argument people fall on, undeniable de Lucia's fusion of the classical and the flamenco in the Concierto has broken new ground.

Yes, I'm aware of the guitar's popularity  .  But how many classical music enthusiasts (non-musicians) choose to play a classical guitar recording of a Bach piece?  I think it is great that people use classical guitar as a means for increasing their formal musical training...but I view it as an appropriate means for expanding one's virtuoso musicianship rather than the end product. 

In terms of the commentary about Bach and classical guitar, the works of Bach (select) transcribed for the guitar are a basic part of the classical guitar student's repertoire. Yepes's love of Bach was the inspiration behind Yepes's creation of his famous 10-string guitar in an effort to come closer to a lutelike sound and because it made transposition of Bach's lute works much easier. There is hardly any recording of any renowned (and revered) classical guitarist that does not include Bach. Among my favorites are the great Christopher Parkening of which too little is heard these days, in addition to Yepes, Segovia, Williams....