# Flamenco v classical guitar



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

I found this on the tube of you. The video featured Julian Bream interviewing Paco Pena.

What do we think?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't know what it means that "classical guitarists pay too much attention to sound and not creation", but Flamenco is a music developed on guitar and it shows.
I mean, listening to El Nino Miguel playing Vino Y Caballos it's impossible to imagine it played on another instrument. The music is deeply tied to the possibilities of the instrument and it definitely sounds much more natural.





Classical music is very different. 
Sure, for a perfectly smooth sound the fragility of the nails is a problem, but a lot of classical music for guitar, even when it's obviously much more harmonically complex sounds as it is composed for a piano with very low sustain.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

It was a comment posted by someone. I guess what he was getting at is that classical players are more formal, structured, he feels that classical music is too much about form rather than expression. 
Flamenco music is very passionate.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

As a whole, it may show emotion more readily, sure. But there are many other valuable aspects of life. I actually feel many over-value emotion... as if it's the heroin of existence or something. 

I enjoy both of these genres, though.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think Flamenco is very enjoyable and an impressive style but clearly less diverse and dynamic than Classical guitar. It is kind of an unfair comparison if one really thinks about how many different styles of pieces can be grouped under this title 'Classical' though - some of these pieces can be dripping with emotion, others are not, in so many cases it really depends on the interpreter. There are many Spanish classical guitar pieces that have elements of Flamenco within them. 

Classical guitar has more within it that I like and also probably more that I don't much enjoy.

I do think the quote in the OP has more to do with that individual's projections and personal impressions based on certain types of performance more so than classical guitar itself.

I think many have acknowledged that there came a time in classical performance when technical perfection became perhaps too highly valued by some in comparison to things like improvisation, and spontaneity but in the Baroque era things were not like this. The way of performing the individual in the OP is referring to is in the big picture of "classical music" more or less just one small phase of performance. 

Nowadays you do see more and more "classically trained" guitarists branching out, learning new things, incorporating elements of things like flamenco and jazz and performing with more improvisation and more "raw feeling" perhaps than some players in the past (a good example is composer/performer/teacher Roland Dyens who generally begins his concerts with an improvised piece). So I don't think one can pinpoint that 'classical guitar" is any one thing, as it is many different things, many different styles and is constantly evolving.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I find flamenco guitarists to be much more dynamic than classical players. Fingerstyle acoustic guitar has a very limited dynamic range. The rasgueado technique in flamenco creates a much more dynamic sound.

This is the finest Paco de Lucia concert I've found so far.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I find flamenco guitarists to be much more dynamic than classical players. Fingerstyle acoustic guitar has a very limited dynamic range. The rasgueado technique in flamenco creates a much more dynamic sound.


I love those Flamenco techniques, but I have some doubt that there's more dynamics. Recently I was talking with a person I know, who has studied classical music and also flamenco, and he was saying that flamenco guitars have much more volume but a lot less dynamics. The sound of those instruments is always loud (like a banjo I guess).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm sure the guitars are built differently utilizing other types of wood. But creating dynamics is up to the guitarist.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Dynamics is certainly more than volume. Fingerstyle, in particular, heavily utilizes varying degrees of harmonics in a way Flamenco doesn't. I always thought it was the more dynamic of the two.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

See, it's more 'poppy' in nature, but it has a much wider array of dynamics.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Dynamics is certainly more than volume. Fingerstyle, in particular, heavily utilizes varying degrees of harmonics in a way Flamenco doesn't. I always thought it was the more dynamic of the two.


Dynamics is not volume. It's the range between the softest and loudest passages. I guess it all depends on the performer and the material. Traditional classical guitar doesn't hold my interest for very long. It's all so neat and tailored. But there are a number of contemporary players/quartets, composers that are interesting to listen to. The LAGQ, and Maurice Ohana's music for 10 string guitar come to mind.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Dynamics include volume.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

By both classical and flamenco guitar standards, Paco de Lucia was a great master.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Norman Bates post on dynamics is correct. Dynamics includes elements of volume but also includes many other things - basically anything in addition to just playing the notes in a regular way. One may prefer Flamenco to classical guitar, but to say it is more dynamic is flat out false.

Starthrower please watch this short video until the end and then please show me a Flamenco guitarist using as much variety of technique in their approach:


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

I agree with Morimur, and you will hardly find a classical or modern guitarrist (McLaughling knew it when touring with De Lucía) playing Flamenco well, it's something you are born with.
Once I knew a classical trained guitarrist who wanted to learn Flamenco; when lessons ended, his teacher told him "you already know the technics, now go to a Bullfight", he went, and understood: he forgot the idea of playing Flamenco.:lol:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

SilverSurfer said:


> I agree with Morimur, and you will hardly find a classical or modern guitarrist (McLaughling knew it when touring with De Lucía) playing Flamenco well, it's something you are born with.
> Once I knew a classical trained guitarrist who wanted to learn Flamenco; when lessons ended, his teacher told him "you already know the technics, now go to a Bullfight", he went, and understood: he forgot the idea of playing Flamenco.:lol:


I agree that Paco was a great master of both Flamenco and Classical, but your point works both ways - aside from Paco how many Flamenco guitarists are there out there that are also professional classical guitarists?

And even Paco to my knowledge did not stray much from Flamenco influenced styles of classical like Rodrigo and de Falla when he did perform classical.

Also, at the end of the day how hard something is to play isn't why I might prefer one style over the other. The fact is different styles are hard in different ways and different guitarists are suited towards different purposes. John Scofield admits he has a hard time alternate picking scales fast - he is clearly better suited towards his style of jazz than most heavy metal - that to me is not really an indicator that one style is better than the other.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

You're right, tdc, maybe Manolo Sanlúcar is the only known of Flamenco guitarrists to have followed De Lucía's steps, and always giving Aranjuez's Concerto and few other works a Flamenco approach.

But I did not mean they can play classical music, only that you can study classical guitar but you must be born to play Flamenco, mainly from the gipsy Spanish communities.

And it's a different kind of music; when some Spanish composers have tried to mix both worlds, the results is usually dissapointing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SilverSurfer said:


> I agree with Morimur, and you will hardly find a classical or modern guitarrist (McLaughling knew it when touring with De Lucía) playing Flamenco well, it's something you are born with.
> Once I knew a classical trained guitarrist who wanted to learn Flamenco; when lessons ended, his teacher told him "you already know the technics, now go to a Bullfight", he went, and understood: he forgot the idea of playing Flamenco.:lol:


lol, my basque grandfather used to watch bullfights in TVE while wearing his beret, so I grew up with that. Maybe I should try Flamenco!  (I play 'classical' piano, though!)


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

:lol:
Then, maybe is your grandfather who should try, and your basque blood is very very different from that of Andalucía, but who knows...:guitar:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SilverSurfer said:


> And it's a different kind of music; when some Spanish composers have tried to mix both worlds, the results is usually dissapointing.


Composers like Falla or Ohana were influenced by flamenco and did great music. It's true that usually their influence doesn't show in the technique of guitar, anyway this great transcription of the Danza del fuego made by Rafael Andia is one of my favorite guitar pieces and it shows how to blend successfully the two worlds


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> I agree that Paco was a great master of both Flamenco and Classical, but your point works both ways - aside from Paco how many Flamenco guitarists are there out there that are also professional classical guitarists?
> 
> And even Paco to my knowledge did not stray much from Flamenco influenced styles of classical like Rodrigo and de Falla when he did perform classical.


I knew that Paco didn't know how to read music. Anyway there's also Grisha Goryachev, who I've read studied classical guitar with Elliot Fisk and his flamenco technique is astonishing (hear the speed of his picado at the end of the video)


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

:tiphat:

It's because you mention 2 exceptions and from time ago.
Many people think that Spanish music ends with Falla or Rodrigo, but the fact is that Flamenco is still live as then, but contemporary composers have difficulties to match it with new music.

And regarding Goriachev, it may be another exception, but shouldn't be judged playing a previous piece by De Lucía, but improvising in a "tablao".


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SilverSurfer said:


> :tiphat:
> 
> It's because you mention 2 exceptions and from time ago.


Ohana died in 1992 (I thought it was 1994, but it's not a great difference), and he composed until the end of his life.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LarryShone said:


> I found this on the tube of you. The video featured Julian Bream interviewing Paco Pena.
> 
> What do we think?
> 
> View attachment 50313


Sounds like yet another lame self-defensive comment on improvisation and 'passion' vs. playing the score and another sort of technique. It is the sort of comment that one rarely hears anything like from the classical disciplines on other genres, and it is mildly interesting that it is heard almost exclusively coming from one direction... from other genres than classical and always in some relativity to classical.

It will be refreshing when people within those other genres figure out _they do not have to rationalize what they are against what they aren't,_ and that they don't need to hold themselves up in comparison or contrast to classical music or its techniques in order to be considered worthy or valid.

I'm tired of this (childish) crap, whether it is about one or another genre of metal 'vs' classical music, Jazz 'vs' classical music, or here, Flamenco 'vs' classical guitar.

Its all a tremendous waste of time, going nowhere of any value to discuss.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SilverSurfer said:


> :tiphat:
> 
> It's because you mention 2 exceptions and from time ago.
> Many people think that Spanish music ends with Falla or Rodrigo, but the fact is that Flamenco is still live as then, but contemporary composers have difficulties to match it with new music.


What about Brouwer?

In this piece, for example, I hear certain Flamenco influence, though in a somewhat 'abstract' and post-modern sense, and paired with many other influences. Perhaps the ending shows a more clear Flamenco influence.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SilverSurfer said:


> And regarding Goriachev, it may be another exception, but shouldn't be judged playing a previous piece by De Lucía, but improvising in a "tablao".


that piece is just an example, and I don't think that one needs anything else to realize that his technique is simply amazing.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

Sorry to keep posting in this "childish" thread, but it's because I'm from Catalonia, today still belonging to Spain, so I have heard and attended Flamenco shows/concerts, although I don't particularly like it so much, and there is something apart from technique called "duende" that cannot be learned, as happens with good jazz pianists and other examples, obviously.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SilverSurfer said:


> Sorry to keep posting in this "childish" thread, but it's because I'm from Catalonia, today still belonging to Spain, so I have heard and attended Flamenco shows/concerts, although I don't particularly like it so much, and there is something apart from technique called "duende" that cannot be learned, as happens with good jazz pianists and other examples, obviously.


But that is somewhat the point I like to make about any non-classical music genre, i.e. many of them have a 'high' form which is real art and has real merit, _and without its being 'classical' at all._ Simply saying any of the genres which are not classical 'are not classical' is a simple enough truth, and trying to make a relativity between another genre and classical usually reveals some sense of inferiority, or insecurity about those who like those non-classical genres.

What is the need to bring up any of the other genres in relative comparison to classical, and moreover what on earth is the point or use of comparing them with or against classical? That is what strikes me as 'childish,' i.e. a child looking for adult approval. None of the other genres need any such approval, from the adult or classical community.

Nor should it be any big deal (or recognition, or instantly turn any of those genres more 'legitimate' or 'elevate them') if and when a classical composer takes music from a folk, traditional or pop genre as inspiration or model. Time out of mind, classical composers are known to freely dip into any genre that interests them, and either compose a piece in homage to, or freely use some of those elements they find there.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 13, 2014)

Well, I didn't have that impression when reading this thread, but a good oportunity to talk about Flamenco and classic, no in front of. 
But I may be mistaken, I have just landed here.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> But that is somewhat the point I like to make about any non-classical music genre, i.e. many of them have a 'high' form which is real art and has real merit, _and without its being 'classical' at all._ Simply saying any of the genres which are not classical 'are not classical' is a simple enough truth, and trying to make a relativity between another genre and classical usually reveals some sense of inferiority, or insecurity about those who like those non-classical genres.
> 
> What is the need to bring up any of the other genres in relative comparison to classical, and moreover what on earth is the point or use of comparing them with or against classical? That is what strikes me as 'childish,' i.e. a child looking for adult approval. None of the other genres need any such approval, from the adult or classical community.
> 
> Nor should it be any big deal (or recognition, or instantly turn any of those genres more 'legitimate' or 'elevate them') if and when a classical composer takes music from a folk, traditional or pop genre as inspiration or model. Time out of mind, classical composers are known to freely dip into any genre that interests them, and either compose a piece in homage to, or freely use some of those elements they find there.


Classical represents the pinnacle of human achievement in music. Whether we care to admit it or not, all other musics are, sooner or later, pitted against this behemoth in an attempt to prove their worth. Silly? Sure, but all serious artists wish to be referred to as masters, and unless they create something which is on par with Classical, these composers/musicians will carry with them a sense of inferiority. Again, is it silly and petty? Yes, but we are only human, after all.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Morimur said:


> Because Classical represents the pinnacle of human achievement in music. Whether we care to admit it or not, all other musics are, sooner or later, pitted against this behemoth in an attempt to prove their worth. Silly? Sure, but all serious artists wish to be referred to as masters, and unless they create something which is on par with Classical, these composers/musicians will carry with them a sense of inferiority. Again, is it silly and petty? Yes, but we are only human, after all.


Well, to some degree I think we all believe here that classical is one of the best musical genres, otherwise we wouldn't be in this forum, investing our time in these discussions, after all. I would say I think classical is indeed 'the pinnacle of human achievement in music'. Mainly because it has a little of everything and incorporated in the most 'artful' and consistent way. But, from time time, I would say I listen to other genres because they give me, often at the detriment of other aspects, some very strong insight in one interesting aspect. But after a while I tend to get tired of the lack of multifaceted aspects in these other genres.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

That viewpoint of non classical musicians having an inferiority complex is a pure bunk. Different kinds of musics require different sets of skills and discipline. Do classical musicians feel inferior because they can't improvise and create music spontaneously like the jazz masters? Can they swing and play funky? Can the average concertmaster get up onstage and play a slow blues with the right feel?

Have you ever heard a Bulgarian wedding band? They play some of the most insanely complex rhythms at breakneck tempos. And would the great Indian masters say their music is inferior to western classical?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

starthrower said:


> That viewpoint of non classical musicians having an inferiority complex is a pure bunk. Different kinds of musics require different sets of skills and discipline. Do classical musicians feel inferior because they can't improvise and create music spontaneously like the jazz masters? Can they swing and play funky? Can the average concertmaster get up onstage and play a slow blues with the right feel?
> 
> Have you ever heard a Bulgarian wedding band? They play some of the most insanely complex rhythms at breakneck tempos. And would the great Indian masters say their music is inferior to western classical?


Ok, let's say SOME musicians/composers of non-classical musics feel a sense of inferiority. Fair enough?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No. It's not a matter of inferiority. There just different musical disciplines.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Morimur said:


> Classical represents the pinnacle of human achievement in music. Whether we care to admit it or not, all other musics are, sooner or later, pitted against this behemoth in an attempt to prove their worth. Silly? Sure, but all serious artists wish to be referred to as masters, and unless they create something which is on par with Classical, these composers/musicians will carry with them a sense of inferiority. Again, is it silly and petty? Yes, but we are only human, after all.





starthrower said:


> No. It's not a matter of inferiority. There just different musical disciplines.


Objectively speaking, yes. But does everyone share your view? NO. I initially made a blanket statement which was incorrect and now, you've also made the same mistake.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, I suppose we're getting into the realm of psychology. And generally speaking, most people would acknowledge their inferiority to geniuses of any well known field whether it's Bach, Einstein, or whoever.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I knew that Paco didn't know how to read music.


From a documentary I watched a while ago apparently Paco's sight reading was quite poor, but he claimed it improved greatly during the time he was working on Rodrigo's Concerto Aranjuez.


----------



## The Sound Of Perseverance (Aug 20, 2014)

classical yep yep


----------

