[deteresa]

Yes, this is certainly a good topic for debate. I completely understand the argument on both sides.
Let me just say that pure, old-school cante has never lent itself to professionalism. Throughout the history of Flamenco, I believe many of the best singers have been amatuers. That's because Flamenco is a folk art and people practice it for the joy of the art and of their community, not for the money. That is still the way it is for many people in Spain. The best singers that I saw singing real old-school cante were in the street and at private parties, not in the tablaos or theaters.

[Aurelio]

The question of professionalism, amateurism, commercialism in flamenco, especially in el cante, is a tricky one. Many, many of the great cantaores were "professionals" in the sense that they often sang for señoritos at private juergas, or for (hopefully knowledgeable) paying customers at a tablao. Many of the finest singers worked for the tablao "La Zambra" in Madrid in the 1950s, including many of those whom guitarist Perico el del Lunar gathered to put together the great Hispavox/Westminster anthology that was so vital in the history of the revival of flamenco. I think that flamencologists distinguish between professionalism, wherein the artists presented flamenco in an honest, authentic manner to knowledgeable, paying audiences of aficionados or wannabe aficionados, and commercialism, wherein artists rode the crests of waves of fad enthusiasms in "flamenco"--lots of trilling, falsetto singing, cults of singing malagueñas, fandangos or other cantes andaluces to the exclusion of more gitano or jondo forms, etc. Does this remind us of any recent trends? Pepe Marchena is usually put forth as the worst offender in the middle of the last century in this sort of commercial flamenco ("opera flamenca"). Donn Pohren discusses these issues at some length in The Art of Flamenco and Lives and Legends of Flamenco.

aurelio

[Black Sheep]

I'm beginning to sort out my view on this and I don't feel as threatened by what time might be doing to Flamenco as I did. I conducted a little experiment over the last couple of days wish showed me that the emotion has not been overtaken by commercialism.

Here's what I did... whenever I load Flamenco onto iTunes I try and add the 'palo' wherever possible to the title (Yes, just call me Monk...) and I spent a few days listening solely to a style.... Friday was Bulerias day (isn't every Friday?) Monday Solea and so on... today was Seguiriya... so it was Sabicas, Pena, Vicente Amego, Tomatito, Moraito, Sanlucar and Montoya, Carlos and Ramon all stirred in together. So a track from 1930 would sit next to something from the 2000... and it struck me that the emotion still lives on as the thread that holds the individual jewels together...

For the record, as a modern Seguiriya, Acontecio on Entre Amegos by El Pele and Vicente Amego is sublimely brilliant...

[Aurelio]

I'm complying with Falseta's suggestion that Federico and I take our minor divergence of views to another part of the forum, and here is probably the best place. Federico tells us that Spanish professionals do not regard rumbas and sevillanas as flamenco. I don't either, but I'll bet you that some forum regulars may be shocked, shocked, to read such a thing. To add insult to injury, the late, great cantaor Antonio Mairena, the upholder of purity in flamenco, also ruled out milongas, garrotín, guajiras, colombianas and a bunch of other cantes andaluces associated with the ópera flamenca era. A lot of people maintain that these are flamenco; a lot of people don't, so that Federico's claim that flamenco is flamenco doesn't really mean anything without defining what we are talking about.

On another matter: Diego del Gastor and Morón flamenco have certainly had an amazing part in the history of flamenco for a guitarist and a handful of singers (La Fernanda, La Bernarda, Perrate, etc.) who Federico suggests were only creations and inventions of Donn Pohren. What can explain it?

aurelio

[deteresa]

Hmmm...interesting.
I'm actually going to split hairs even further and say that Rumba can be Flamenco, but Sevillanas is not. There is a reason why Carlos Suara chose to include Rumba in his film "Flamenco" but saved Sevillanas for an entirely different movie.
Sevillanas is a Spanish folk dance that exists alongside Flamenco, but is almost completely restricted to a) festivals such as the Feria, and b) touristy tablaos. Very few Flamenco artists record them, play them live, or play them when they get together with other Flamencos.
But a strong case can be made that they are Flamenco, and if someone wants to call them Flamenco I would not go out of my way to tell them otherwise. Especially since Camaron and Paco recorded some very nice Sevillanas.

Now as far as Rumba, there are different kinds (rumba gitana, rumba flamenca, Gypsy Kings-style, Los Chichos, etc.) but generally it belongs to the group of "cantes de ida y vuelta" - songs drawn from Latin American inspiration that have then been Flamenco-ised.
Rumba is an important palo, and is often played and sung next to Bulerias, Tangos, Fandangos, and everything else. I think rumba is how a lot of Flamencos unwind and have fun. In fact some people argue that Rumba is becoming more similar to Tangos, or even merging into it.
I would go all out and say that Rumba is Flamenco, but then there are Los Chichos...one of the most popular Rumba groups from the 70s and definitely not Flamenco.

YouTube - Los Chichos


Got to go now but I'll post about Morón soon.

[Aurelio]

You can't always believe everything you see in the movies...... Just because Carlos Saura puts something into his Flamenco, that doesn't mean it is flamenco. And if he left it out, that doesn't mean it wasn't flamenco. It probably means that somebody told Saura that "the public" thought it was flamenco, so don't disappoint them. Evidently Saura thought that having Mario Maya and two other dancers march around to a wordless, voiceless, but very rhythmic "martinete"--a palo that itself is cante a palo seco and without compás--made it a martinete. Why not call it saeta instead? It would make just as much sense. Edgar Neville didn't do much better in Duende y Misterioso back in 1952, mixing a bunch of "art", ballet, and Spanish dancing in with some actual flamenco. (Maya's dancing was, however, flamenco, and helped pull Saura's chestnuts out of the fire.) Flamenco is full of lots of things that may or may not be flamenco---I'll take Antonio Mairena's judgment over Saura's any day.

aurelio

[deteresa]

You might have misunderstood me... I was using Saura's movie as an example of my point, not the reason for my view on the matter.
Actually, "Flamenco" is one of the most important pieces of video documentation that the art form possesses, because it shows us the innovative, professional Flamenco "show", as a counterpart to the "Rito y Geografio" which shows us Flamenco in its more natural environment.
Actually martinete does have a compas - the same as Seguiriyas. Traditionally, a blacksmith's anvil is used to beat out the compas. The martinete dance piece in the film was not traditional, but it came immediately after a very traditional performance of pure, palo seco martinetes sung by two of the most Jondo voices in Flamenco.

As far as Morón Flamenco and Diego del Gastor, I personally think he is a bit overrated, although he had a very interesting Bulerias style and certainly lots of duende and personal aire.
I think the Morón school of Flamenco is and was much more popular with Americans than Spaniards, mostly because of Donn Pohren.
However, the fact that Bernarda and Fernanda chose Diego as their primary accompanist for many years does say a lot for him. But I still think Marote did a much better job

[Aurelio]

Andy, I take your point about Saura as example, not as cause. I have serious problems with his Flamenco, as example or as cause, due to the extreme "flexibility" of the definition of flamenco that arises from his selections. The martinetes of Moneo and Agujetas that precede Maya's are what martinetes are supposed to be, sung without accompaniment (except maybe a hammer and anvil). When Antonio was the first to dance them, he cast about for a compás and chose that of siguiriyas, and that's fine. But when all we're left with is a dance, and no other connection to a recognizable palo, we're beginning to lose touch with flamenco.

The "alegrías" (selection #4) presents its own problems, as do the guajira, the "bulerías" of Lole y Manuel (a pleasant art song that would be just as nice sung in Norwegian), and the several tangos and the rumba......I will vigorously resist the urge to go on. There are, of course, many examples of fine and authentic flamenco, of which my favorites include Fernanda with Paco del Gastor, Chocolate with the Farrucos and R. Amador, and the alegrías of Rancapino, Chano Lobato, and Matilde Coral.

You might say that Flamenco can be viewed as a documentary of how a wondrous art form that remained relatively stable (slowly evolving) for well more than a century, is going off the tracks as a newer and much larger "world" audience, not knowledgeable about flamenco's past, seeks to be fed what they have been led to believe is "flamenco".

About Diego and the Morón school, Brook Zern has summed up the case for them well: Diego. An essay by Brook Zern - Special Reports of Flamenco

My own preference, always, has been for pueblo flamenco, as "live" (non-commercial?) as possible. This is as close as possible to what I believe to be what flamenco has always been about.

aurelio

[Frontera]

Interesting opinions! What palos may or may not be considered flamenco is certainly a debate that there have been lengthy articles written about. What flamenco is varies from person to person. No consensus exist. The roots of flamenco are heavily debated.

The criticism I see against the "Moron" (Diego del Gastor) style of flamenco comes from jealousy. It is a simple yet very complex way of playing. Thousands have tried to parrot Diego del Gastor, but I have heard no one that can do it perfectly. Paco de Lucia was the one that bad mouthed Diego saying it was all hype, yet no one has ever heard Paco parrot Diego with precision. Nino Ricardo said it best, "You might say that Diego is flamenco. The rest of us are something else, professionals only too often lost in the technicalities of the instrument."

We have several young guitar masters that can parrot Sabicas, Ramon Montoya, and Paco de Lucia with a high degree of precision. Unlike many others Diego and his teacher Pepe Naranjo did not have compositions they rehearsed, perfected, and played. They just started playing. Since there are limited recording of Diego most of his playing is in the minds of his students and nephews. When they are all gone this is lost forever. What they have taught others is second hand and has their take on it.

I have listened to many accomplished students of Diego and also his nephews play. They all vary in their styles. When we refer to the Moron style of playing, it can be confusing now with the "Sons of Frontera." What most of us mean is Diego's style and I realize more and more I should say it that way as what is Moron style is another debate without consensus.

Concerning Donn Pohren. Yes he was the ones that brought guitar players and dancers to Moron de la Frontera with his books, then many came from hearing stories by friends and seeing them play. What most do not realize is that there was TWO separate flamenco camps in Moron. The few that stayed at Pohrens Finca and the ones that stayed in town. The ones in town mingled with the gypies there, attending their juergas and regular attendance at Bar Pepe. The ones from the finca experienced what happened there when Diego or his nephews were paid to come play or teach. They came to town on occasion in the Landcruiser stayed for a while then left. The in town bunch would laugh at the sardine can on wheels with it's structured schedule. One must remember Pohren was a writer and wrote from his viewpoint. Diego had many in town students that knew more about him than Pohren ever did. The in town bunch lived primitive as the gitano did, they didn't have luxuries of the Finca. Don't get me wrong, Pohren and Diego were friends, but Pohren did NOT make Diego. Diego made Pohren. Without Diego, Pohren would have never written the books about Moron or settled there.

Diego never wanted to be famous. He enjoyed teaching foreigners and the town enjoyed the money they brought in. Diego considered himself a simple country player, however he possessed something that comes out in his playing that seems to elude the highest trained and skilled parrots.

I have never been to Spain so my information is from my original teacher and those that spent time in Moron during the 60's and early 70's. Even among these people there exist a variety of opinions.

[deteresa]

Hehe, don't mess with a guy who's screen name is Frontera
Sam, it's absolutely true that no one has ever been able to imitate Diego, and I don't think anyone ever will. It's because he doesn't just play the notes, he plays like he's talking through the instrument. With Paco or Sabicas, you can learn their pieces from written sheet music, but with Diego, the old adage is true that "Flamenco can not be written down". He was his own man. As far as his playing, of course, it's just a matter of taste.