Im a huge believer that every musician should be able to improvise and its impossible to improvise properly unless you know theory. Most guitarists (in any genre) learn to improvise either by just learning songs and then copying other peoples style or else by being given scale shapes and then just told by their teacher to improvise in that shape. Which is why most guitarists either sound like a copycat of someone or who is just noodling inside a box scale shape. I know Flamenco is mostly based on E Phrygian with a G# and D# added to it. This scale is only approximating arabic scales which is not tempered but built on exact intervals. I think its important to know that arabic music theory is based on Pythagorean music theory where scale tones are exact 5ths of each other. There is a really good youtube video called "How Pythagoras Broke Music" that is worth watching for anyone not familiar with how the western diatonic scale has been tempered and so not exact intervals like arabic scales are. So I am requesting a full course that covers all the possible flamenco scales and how to construct chords in those scales. I just subscribed to this online school and I know you cover a certain amount of theory by explaining options available to improvising. But I think its important to cover complete theory all in one place which will give the student an overall high level understanding of theory and improvisation instead of learn a little at a time and possibly not making important connections to how it all relates to each other. Since Kai went to Berkeley school of music I would say is very well qualified to make this course even more so than many famous flamenco artists.
Hey Bradley - I agree with a lot of what you say here. but I'll challenge the idea that you have to know theory to improvise. Countless flamenco players and even jazz players have shown that theory isn't always necessary, but I totally agree that for us mortals it probably helps. I've been considering a theory course for a while now, though I believe that what most players really need is a good handle on basic jazz theory. There's not a whole lot on flamenco theory, and what there is is all an attempt to explain what's going using "standard" music theory (and, I'd argue, for good reason). So let me ask you - since you're obviously the kind of player I'd be doing the course for - what specifically would you want to get out of such a course? And when you say "improvise" do you mean that as in soloing over chord changes, or in the way that flamenco players basically improvise arrangements on the fly?
Cheers,
Kai
Im really glad you bring this up because the words 'improvise' and 'music theory' can mean a lot of different things, especially for jazz heads, so I will try to explain what those differences are and which one I mean. For people learning jazz, most people are just told to learn jazz standards. That can be a good or bad thing depending on how you approach it. Some people go out and buy "The Real Book" or some kind of chord charts which are usually always wrong and leave open a lot to interpretation. "The Real Book" was made by people at Berkeley school of music to standardize the lead sheets for jazz standards (and yet is still inaccurate) and so people base their entire jazz careers on it, which is sad really. So then there are people who are told you can only learn jazz by listening to the actual recordings of jazz standards. This only works if you have really good relative pitch and can transcribe music just by hearing it. And you dont have to know theory to know how to do this, this is a skill you can develop independent of theory. So I do think its possible to become a professional level jazz player by doing this enough because eventually youre going to learn the theory just by seeing how chord progressions go over scales and chord voicings are constructed. The problem with this is that there are a lot of musicians who think theyre improvising but really are not. Like if you ask them to use a different chord progression or change to another key, they cant. This is very common with guitar players who basically just learn a lot of licks by their favorite guitarists and eventually develop a style of their own to where they come up with their own licks and then write their own songs. But they really dont know the theory behind what theyre doing and they end up sounding like the people they copy. To jazz 'purists' that is not only ok, but desired as youre supposed to just learn by copying. I personally found this very frustrating when I was trying to learn jazz because all the books just tell you about chord progressions and chord voicings youre supposed to use but not the big picture as to what jazz is trying to accomplish. It wasnt till I found this youtube channel called "Walk that Bass" where I finally found a description of the music theory being used in jazz and what its trying to accomplish. OK, so now would that even be possible with flamenco? Because as Ive mentioned, flamenco music is a sort of folk music where they converted music in arabic scales and fit it into the tempered diatonic scale. For example blues music was also originally a type of folk music, but the rules to blues music is very simple, its just a I-IV-V progression of 7th chords over 12 bars. So it might be that it is impossible to set up a strict set of rules for what flamenco is and that it will always be a style of music that can only be imitated and embellished. So having said all that, I think its still possible for you to make a theory course for the simple reason that you mentioned that you were able to see how flamenco worked in relation to diatonic theory after you attended Berkeley school of music. So thats all Im asking of you, Im not expecting you to define flamenco with music theory because it may be undefinable. I just want to know what kind of scales and chord progressions you discovered you were using in flamenco after you learned western diatonic theory.
Hey - lots to unpack here, but there's also a relatively simple answer to your question, and it only really requires a basic understanding of theory to grasp it. Let's take the key of E Phrygian (Por Arriba) in flamenco. Despite the Major quality of the I chord (and that natural 3rd will come to play soon), it all basically operates if we think of the modes of E Phrygian (or C Major). The E Major gets a Phrygian scale (the main not-normal bit, which gives flamenco its sound), the F is Lydian, the G is Mixo and the A minor is Aeolian. All modes of C Major or E Phrygian. That G# also gives you the addition of an A Harmonic minor scale that works a lot of the time. Beyond that you have secondary dominants that operate as they would in any other tonal music, and then a lot of "outside" stuff that's borrowed from other styles, with a heavy dose of symmetric diminished and whole-tone scales.
This is not to say that I'm not still thinking about the best way to do a theory course. But I believe that the greatest benefit for most guitarists will come from an understanding of basic stuff like chord spelling, the relationship between chord/arpeggio/scale and all of that good stuff.
A theory course will definitely happen at some point when I wrap my head around the best way to present it. In the meantime, the info above explains the vast majority of the phrygian stuff in flamenco (for the Palos in Major and minor keys, tonal harmony "rules" apply). Assuming what I wrote makes sense, let me know what you'd like to know beyond this. You're making me really think about this course again, which I appreciate!
I really dont know much at all about the origins of Flamenco music, but it appears to me to be a folk music, by that I mean a music that common people (who were untrained musically) made up to imitate more formal music they were exposed to. Most types of folk music have informal rules or completely undefined rules and only have certain styles that players imitate. Since Spain was occupied by arabs Im thinking that Flamenco is just an approximation of arabic music using the tempered diatonic western scale that had become standard in western europe. As you probably know arabic scales are not tempered, the tones of the octave are built on exact fifth ratios. So this is unlike the tempered western diatonic scale where all the scale tones are adjusted so that all 7 tones of each of the 12 keys to match up with each other. So because arabic music is not tempered this means that there are hundreds (perhaps an infinite) of possible scales that can be produced and all attempts to categorize and standardize them over hundreds of years have failed. So we have two problems, the european diatonic scale tone pitches do not match up exactly with any of the arabic scales and there is no unified standard for what arabic scales even exist. So Im thinking its impossible to create any exact music theory rules for Flamenco since its only an approximation of another scale system. The only possible thing that can be done is to document the most popular and well accepted Flamenco pieces with sheet music and simply comment on what kind of scales and chord progressions are being used and simply use this for an outline of what is most common in Flamenco. You mentioned advanced diatonic scales such as diminished and whole tone scales are used in Flamenco which in western music are types of scales only jazz players would ever use, meaning there are no rules to Flamenco, Flamenco players simply use whatever they think sounds Flamenco.
Perhaps I could add my 2 cents, for what they're worth.
"its impossible to improvise properly unless you know theory" -- Here is a video of Paco de Lucia, who didn't "really" know any music theory nor the names of scales or chords, talking about his experience learning to improvise:
Yes, Paco practiced 10 hours a day since he was like 5; yes, he did internalize the notes and intervals of 12-TET; yes, he did eventually learn (at least on an intuitive level) to think about the set of harmonies he would be going to next while improvising. That said, I think it's still safe to say that he was effectively unacquainted with the fundamental customs and intricacies of conventional western music theory and harmony. And to this point, with regards flamenco, I believe it is not at all necessary to learn western music theory to be able to play, compose, or improvise flamenco (although it can be quite helpful). I think for western ears, this thought may inspire fear and may sound even blasphemous -- I was of such a mind once. But now, I find it utterly liberating to "throw the rules out the window". As you develop an ear for what "sounds flamenco", for what "feels flamenco", you can begin to let your intuition and taste guide you. Phrygian (Hijaz), Ionian and Aeolian scales, the various basic chords and chord variations associated with each scale degree, the basic rhythmic structure of a compas, various traditional and timeless melodies (in particular any variation or colourful spin on iv-III-II-I as well as many letras and falsetas), the basic right-hand techniques, or any other musical thing that you pick up from learning music (flamenco or jazz or otherwise) -- we should be crude and brash alchemists with these as the primitive elements of our musical experiments. Let us forget for a moment about the stringent pompousness that the classical tradition has impressed onto the larger world and instead be obnoxiously unashamed with the improvisations and compositions that become of us from our sense and love of flamenco.
All this, of course, with the guiding principle: our music should scream flamenco as brilliantly and as painfully as it possibly can (and also stay in compas)
Ive seen this video before. I was really astonished when Paco said he cant improvise and asked western guitarists how to improvise after already being a well renown flamenco player. I was lucky enough to see Paco in concert in a small venue in Tacoma Washington before he died.
Wow, that's amazing! I was 19 when Paco passed away, and I didn't even discover flamenco until a few years ago. I can't imagine how amazing it would have been to see him play live. Of course with youtube today we can view many videos of him playing, but this is hardly a good approximation of a live performance.
A note on the origin of flamenco (disclaimer: I'm definitely NOT a flamencologist, so get a good amount of salt before reading this):
There is some consensus that the Romani people originated from the northern Indian subcontinent, migrated out of India (~500-1000AD) westward, and eventually made their way via the middle-east and north Africa to Europe and subsequently many other parts of the world where they now live in diaspora populations, including southern Spain. I am tempted to think that the artistic and cultural heritage of the Romani people as regards flamenco has many roots in the artistic and cultural practices (song and dance) of certain groups from India -- for instance we can draw many parallels between the Kathak dance and Flamenco baile, but this might be based more in pareidolia than historical fact (although the similarities can be glaring). Moreover, the migration of these peoples out of India entails several centuries of migration in which culture was influenced by comingling with other groups and peoples in different places at different times. Some trace the earliest arrival of Roma in Spain to the 15th century, coinciding with the end of Moorish rule in Spain and the beginning of the inquisition. The inquisition entailed persecution of certain groups, including the Moors, Jews, and Gitanos, and it has been suggested that the basis of flamenco started to form with the persecution of these groups -- hence the purported Moorish and Jewish influence on the music (especially in the cante). The development of the music from here to the 20th century also entails some integration of western European music (like the introduction of the fretted, equally tempered guitar and some classical harmonic norms).
This is all to say that it is entirely possible (and perhaps highly probable) that for a very long time, song and dance has been in the blood and culture of all those generations who came before the gypsies in Andalusia. The origin, history, and development of Flamenco before the late 18th century is extremely complex, enigmatic and inescapably mysterious; thus in my opinion it is not useful to consider Flamenco as an approximation of Arabic music nor any other style of music as it's origin entails a myriad number of cultural influences. Rather, we should consider Flamenco as a thing-in-itself, born in the hearts and souls of the gypsies of Andalusia, whose heritage belongs not only to those persecuted and oppressed peoples of Andalusia and Spain but also to the entire history of the world and of human endeavour and passion. Perhaps we should consider all music this way.
Concerning the "music theory" of Flamenco: if we think of music theory not as a set of fundamental rules that we must employ and never break in order for our music to sound good, but rather as a set of conventions and traditions that have been developed and handed down within a genre or sub-genre of music that are themselves subject to breaking and experimentation, then we may perfectly well formulate a music theory for flamenco by observing and aggregating what flamencos do and have done by identifying common melodies, chord shapes, progressions, runs, etc. Perhaps you are looking for a complete systemization of flamenco music -- but the music and tradition is typically somewhat averse to this. For instance, a major difference is that in jazz (I'm not knowledgeable on this honestly) there is a big focus on things like modulation and re-harmonization as well as particular attention on functional harmony and chord extensions on top of the basic seventh chords, and these things just aren't too important in flamenco because for the most part we are just in phrygian, sometimes major/minor, and really the only explicit modulating we do is between these 3 modes. But I'm hardly an expert when it comes to music theory so... if you would like to dismiss my thoughts on the matter, you might be right to do so.
Okay one last thing lol (I definitely like to ramble, sorry): concerning arabic scales, the only intervals in arabic scales that are tuned using just intonation are the octave and the 5th (using the third harmonic). The oud for example, it's strings are tuned in 5ths (or 4ths depending on how you "look" at it). The oud is fretless. On any fretless stringed instrument, theoretically speaking, there are infinitely many tones that may be produced on any one string (a.k.a. course) of the instrument (there are infinitely many points at which we can place our finger on the string, hence there are infinitely many different tensions we can hold the string at, hence infinitely many distinct fundamental frequencies the strings can vibrate at, assuming the length of the neck spans a single octave); realistically, due to the limitations of our ears and the size of our finger tips, the number of tones we can play/distinguish are finite, and the best among us could probably differentiate something like 50 different tones on a single string (that's a complete guess btw). Beyond the octave and the 5th, some notes fall on familiar tones of 12 tone equal temperament (12-TET), and some are microtonal deviations away from 12-TET.
Googling it now, I see that there is in fact a 24-TET system that is used to notate different kinds of arabic music -- yes it is equally tempered, and includes all the tones of our 12-TET as well each tone half-way in-between the consecutive notes of 12-TET. Wikipedia says that there are in fact scales and modes (called maqamat) in arabic music and that there are over 70 of them. I assume that, like traditional indian music which also utilizes microtones and similar vocal devices (like ululating), there is a rich history of music theory and tradition in different arabic and south-asian cultures. So there are indeed systems and standards of music theory in arabic music, although it seems quite unlike the western tradition in many ways.
In any case, as modern westerners, it is highly tempting to fit all contemporary music into the framework and paradigm of western music theory. But it can be a humbling experience to realize that, for thousands of years before the advent of, say, monophonic ecclesiastical plain chant (as an arbitrary marker of the beginning of the western music tradition), humans were practicing music completely detached from this paradigm. We modern humans are completely spoiled, from the get-go, with the wealth of musical history that has preceded us. I mean how many years of primitive experimentation and development of musical ideas and instruments did it take to get us to this point? It is a tragedy how much remains -- and will remain -- lost forever to time. Sorry for rambling so long, but sometimes I just can't help it.
As for trying to ascertain the origins of flamenco, you mention the 1500s as a starting point. It should be pointed out that in europe they had only just developed polyphonic music a short time before that. Because europe was out of touch with the musical knowledge that the arabs has access to, the entire dark ages and middle ages in europe were stuck in monophonic music, or "monophonic ecclesiastical plain chant" as you put it. Also the 1500s was the time when equal temperament was being developed for the diatonic scale which meant instruments like lutes were starting to get a standardized fret pattern. As for the cultural origins of flamenco, I think more can be learned from flamenco singers than flamenco guitar because singers are not limited by the tempered diatonic scale like the guitar is. I dont know anything at all about what kind of musical pitches that flamenco singers are using, but I can only say it sounds similar to both arabic and indian singers just from a stylistic standpoint to my ears. But european guitars were the only instruments the people had access to so they had to form the music to fit the instrument unlike singers who I believe more accurately carry the original form of the music by not having any scale limitations. What you mention about the 24-TET arabic scale being tempered is wrong, the 24-TET system for arabic music is just an approximation of the arabic scale made by splitting the notes the western diatonic 12 note scale in half and is not meant to be taken as exact pitches. In persian music each note of the octave is broken up into 8 commas (note divisions). This is reflected in instruments like the qanun, the arabic qanun only has 2 pitch levers for each string whereas the persion qanun has 8 levers (if I recall correctly). Its important to point out that the arabic scale is built on exact pitch ratios: 1:1 (unison), 2:1 (octave), 5:3 (major sixth), 3:2 (perfect fifth), 4:3 (perfect fourth), 5:4 (major third), 6:5 (minor third), so there is an exact pitch for each note in arabic scales that can be measured scientifically, its not an infinite amount of pitches.
Wow, very interesting -- I did not know that about polyphonic music and the diatonic scale.
I totally agree with you about the singing. Although I started to become interested in Flamenco because of the guitar, now I can't really listen to it anymore without the canté or palmas, and the guitar has become secondary for me (but of course I still love it).
You are correct about the 24tet system. It is merely a notational convention used to translate the music into european notation and does not encompass the finer details that are performed live.
I think I was misleading with my comment on "infinite tones". To be sure, there a not infinitely many tones in arabic music. My point was ultimately that there are, theoretically, infinitely many tones in general if the basic definition of a tone is reduced to an association with some fundamental frequency.
As to your last point, I'm not entirely convinced that all "arabic scales" are built on exact ratios because I don't think that the intervals of the ajnas in the maqamat are mathematically fixed to any ideal form and they may even be performed slightly differently between musicians and regions.
In any case, a course on flamenco music theory would be great and I would totally watch it (despite my potentially naive thoughts about music theory in general).