Classical Guitar vs Jazz Guitar

[ronjazz]

Making a living as a player is currently as much about marketing as it is about playing. While there is not as much studio work as there used to be, and even not as much concert work as there used to be, there is an ever-growing Senior Citizen market that serves very well for those of us who don't have any interest in teaching 10-year-olds the latest power chord anthem, as well as the new and growing House Concert market, and the Library Concert market. Granted, the more styles one can effectively play with conviction and style, the more chances to break into these markets.

[ronjazz]

i can see that you are very detail oriented. for example, word choice is something that you zero in on. great, me too.

with regards to improvising with classical guitar technique - i said "believe" because there is no demonstrable case of an improviser who can blow 5 minute hot solos over Giant Steps for example, with the tone of Julian Bream or David Russell etc, etc. no such person walks the earth. you know it, i know it.

awkward or tricky or difficult could all be used to describe difficult right hand moves. if there were no such thing then everyone/anyone could play Albeniz like Williams, or Brouwer like Cobo, or Turina and Torroba like Bream etc, etc, etc. But they can't. Neither can you.

don't get your knickers in a knot. it's not about you.

Gene Bertoncini

[fumblefingers]

Paco de Lucia has a ravishing sound, as beautiful as any classical player. His version of the Concierto de Aranjuez lacks nothing tonally, and in amny respects, certainly rhythmically, is far more faithful to the score and the intent of the music than most classical players. He also is a fine improvisor and holds his own with McLaughlin, Dimeola and Corea.

i disagree 180 degrees. you realize that its not about the player, its about the tecnique right?

anyway, i've heard him play it. its so far from the sound of a great classical player, its not even funny. you would really want to invite comparison of that to performances by Williams, Bream, Parkening, Romero, Russell? something tells me that you dont listen to nearly enough classical.

[fumblefingers]

Gene Bertoncini

what about him? he's a nice jazz player. he gigs at chain restaurants sometimes.

again, you are comparing this playing to that of say... Julian Bream?

you should really think about giving this up, and go expand your listening experience for awhile.

[ronjazz]

Well, the question is, do you listen to anyone but yourself?

I studied with Alexandre Lagoya, Oscar Ghiglia and John Williams, as well as Mario Escudero and Paco Pena. I have played in masterclasses with Parkening, Russell, etc. I have been a pro guitarist for 45 years, I have taught classical guitar at New England Conservatory, and I've been on staff at Wesleyan University as flamenco dance accompanist. I can say this: you don't have a clue. You have lots of opinions, but you really don't have very good ears at all. You have a weird bias that closes you off from anything but your very narrow viewpoint. I'll note here that I haven't disparaged Bream's sound, or Williams's sound (both of whom I've "jammed" with one-on-one), merely pointed out that De Lucia's tonal mastery in the Aranjuez is clear to anyone with an open mind. I guess I wasn't addressing you. You should try listening to anyone but yourself some day. Also, your rather stupid, uninformed comment on Gene Bertoncini is indicative of how little you really know about the guitar world beyond your nose.

By the way, whether you like it or not, it's not about you, either.

[fumblefingers]

Well, the question is, do you listen to anyone but yourself?

I studied with Alexandre Lagoya, Oscar Ghiglia and John Williams, as well as Mario Escudero and Paco Pena. I have played in masterclasses with Parkening, Russell, etc. I have been a pro guitarist for 45 years, I have taught classical guitar at New England Conservatory, and I've been on staff at Wesleyan University as flamenco dance accompanist. I can say this: you don't have a clue. You have lots of opinions, but you really don't have very good ears at all. You have a weird bias that closes you off from anything but your very narrow viewpoint. I'll note here that I haven't disparaged Bream's sound, or Williams's sound (both of whom I've "jammed" with one-on-one), merely pointed out that De Lucia's tonal mastery in the Aranjuez is clear to anyone with an open mind. I guess I wasn't addressing you. You should try listening to anyone but yourself some day. Also, your rather stupid, uninformed comment on Gene Bertoncini is indicative of how little you really know about the guitar world beyond your nose.

By the way, whether you like it or not, it's not about you, either.

well then you certainly have expertise over mine. however, its just your opinion vs. mine that the master flamenco player in question has a tone that is on par with the greatest classical players. you have your ear taste, i have mine.

and you're right. my point of view on this is indeed narrow. we are talking about human beings after all. people tend to be best at what they do, not at what they don't do. i have never seen evidence that a flamenco player can play classical as well as the world's best classical players, never seen evidence that the world's best classical players can play flamenco as well as the world's best flamenco players (although Pepe is more refined, its more about style), never seen evidence that the world's best rockers can play jazz on par with the world's best jazzers and vice versa. same with pitchers and quarterbacks etc. you get the idea.

i never said they couldn't function, or even do fairly well. my focus on this point is the very top of the art, that's all. so if you want to listen to Paco play Rodrigo knock yourself out. its a free country.

and while i partially agree with you regarding the Paco to Johnny Mac and DiMeola comparison, I would not compare his improv skills to those of Corea. that's a tough call for any guitarist. just my opinion.

[ronjazz]

If your focus was truly on the very top of the art, you'd recognize the contradictions in your reasoning. As it is, your focus is on being right, at all costs, including the destruction of your own credibility. As it's useless to reason with you, I will give up, and leave you to your narrow-mindedness, pre-conceived notions and convenient little pigeonholes.

[fumblefingers]

If your focus was truly on the very top of the art, you'd recognize the contradictions in your reasoning. As it is, your focus is on being right, at all costs, including the destruction of your own credibility. As it's useless to reason with you, I will give up, and leave you to your narrow-mindedness, pre-conceived notions and convenient little pigeonholes.

i don't think its useless. i think that i'm a reasonable man. i'm probably too damned particular, tough minded, and intolerant of mediocrity for your preferences. i can live with that. and i totally respect your giving up.

[czardas]

Paco de Lucia has a ravishing sound, as beautiful as any classical player. His version of the Concierto de Aranjuez lacks nothing tonally, and in many respects, certainly rhythmically, is far more faithful to the score and the intent of the music than most classical players. He also is a fine improvisor and holds his own with McLaughlin, Dimeola and Corea.

Way to go ronjazz. It's good to see someone agrees with me about this. I kinda gave up this argument before it began. My distinction was about technical mastery of the sound, not personal taste. fumblefingers assertion that Sanlucar's sound is a far cry from a classical guitarists tone is still perplexing to me. If we are to point fingers, then I would have to say that rhythm is pretty poorly developed among classical guitarists.

I know Paco Pena very well. He's a great guy who has had a tremendous influence on me over the years.

[JohnW400]

Ralph Towner is excellent. He is highly regarded and has the respect of LOTS of players. ( I think Larry Coryell calls him the best around)

I don't know why he isn't mentioned more but that seems to be the case for a lot of excellent players. (Especially those players that play their own compositions as opposed to standards.)

I've noticed this over the years. People tend to go with what they know. Look at Mike Stern. I think his CD "Standards' got way more recognition than CD's of his own compositions. I recall it won jazz guitar album of the year at GP magazine.

Some other names I don't see mentioned enough here are Earl Klugh and Charlie Byrd. Granted that fingerstye jazz has evolved so much but Charlie was the 'crossover' guy way back when and then came Earl.

[czardas]

if the capricho arabe performd by bream and de lucia are representative (both on youtube) it wont be much of a comparison.

I couldn't find any examples of Paco de Lucia playing Capricho Arabe on YouTube.

He (Paco de Lucia) also is a fine improvisor and holds his own with McLaughlin, Dimeola and Corea.

Chick Corea doesn't fit this equation, because he isn't known for his guitar playing skills. Try putting the rest of the names in a different order. Error 404

[ronjazz]

Towner is wonderful. Great sound and concept, albeit in the "ECM" jazz mode, rather than the tired old swing style.

[czardas]

Regarding classical players, I'm a big Julian Bream fan. If you haven't watched the BBC TV series Guitarra, then I recommend you try to find it. It's informative and well worth watching.

I'm not so keen on some of these thread titles though. There seem to be quite a few threads using the abbreviation 'vs'. This verses that etc...

[fumblefingers]

Paco de Lucia has a ravishing sound, as beautiful as any classical player. His version of the Concierto de Aranjuez lacks nothing tonally, and in many respects, certainly rhythmically, is far more faithful to the score and the intent of the music than most classical players. He also is a fine improvisor and holds his own with McLaughlin, Dimeola and Corea.

ok. i've listened to Paco back to back with Bream.

Paco's rhythmic treatment was indeed refreshingly different and he played certain passages with his trademark speed. those characteristics were noteworthy relative to most classical performances. i'm sure that he angled his right hand more than usual to get the classical tone as well.

the Bream recording was older and not as well balanced. (the orchestra blasted piercingly out of my reference speakers so i didn't dare turn it up any more). despite those limitations Bream's tone, and variation of tone were clearly superior. his articulation was clearer and his dynamic expressiveness was sophisticated, thoughtful, and intricate. (a spruce top guitar can help with that but...). his use of vibrato certainly stuck out relative to the flamenco master's.

yes Paco's version was nice, but in truth there really isn't much comparison.

love to hear him do his own stuff and jam with Johnny Mac though.

[ronjazz]

You're right, there isn't much comparison. Bream plays this very Spanish piece as an Englishman, and Paco as a Spaniard.

[fumblefingers]

there's some truth to that. but its classical, and evocative of flamenco - not flamenco. i suppose i could next compare it to Pepe's version but there's no point. Paco is simply not a classsical guitarist.

flamenco is a rustic folk music. but you know all that. you Paco fans are stubbornly loyal. thats good.

[bluegreenguitar]

my favorite musicians that combine jazz and nylon string techniques are probably Bola Sete (the live at newport is awesome) and Baden Powell. Villa Lobos was supposed to be an amazing improviser, too. Also Al Di Meola put out that album where he played Piazolla with a percussion player on nylon strings, though I think he used a pick. So did Sharon Isbin, though I don't know if she improvised on it. But who cares? It sounds great. And Nino Josele made that album about Bill Evans and Tomatito did that Spain album.

If I remember Paco talking, he said that he learned how to improvise 'jazz' stuff from Al and John pretty much when they started playing. I don't know if that's true though. A lot of that stuff flamencos play, in my understanding is stuff they composed beforehand.

I've tried to improvise over bulerias and to reharmonize them with jazz chords like some of those piano players but let's just say it's a work in progress.

Anyways I like learning everything cause you never know when that albanico on timbales might come in handy at your next solo guitar gig. I guess that means trying to learn both classical and jazz and flamenco, though I don't many people can play like John Williams, Paco and Wes haha

[cmajor9]

Ralph Towner is excellent. He is highly regarded and has the respect of LOTS of players. ( I think Larry Coryell calls him the best around)

+1 on that... Ralph Towner is a terrific player and composer! I've admired him for years. I think there's some truth to what you say about playing original vs. standard compositions. There is so much variety in his output that he can't be pigeonholed, which some people prefer, I guess. Bridging jazz, classical, "world" and some uncategorizable elements mixed in different proportions, with real creativity.

Anyone looking for a more purely "jazzy" piece of his could start with The Prowler.

[czardas]

flamenco is a rustic folk music. but you know all that. you Paco fans are stubbornly loyal. thats good.

And jazz is so sophisticated by comparison. Funny thing is that I see it as being the other way round.

You ask a question "What is flamenco?". Scholars have been trying to figure that one out for the best part of 100 years. Your definition, 'rustic folk music', shows complete ignorance of something which on the highest level is an extremely difficult and technically complicated art form. Some of this thread is tediously boring, like an endless stream of meaningless impro going nowhere. Really clever!

[JohnRoss]

flamenco is a rustic folk music. but you know all that .

Beware of things everyone knows, they're often wrong. Flamenco as 'a rustic folk music' is mostly a myth, especially the 'rustic' part. Flamenco is as rustic as the blues or, come to that, jazz, which is to say, not very. You've been sold the Hollywood, gypsies-around-the-campfire picture.

[czardas]

There is just no comparison. Flamenco simply rocks! Despite it's rustic reputation, it's just so awesome!

[Pullush]

I don' get your points fumblefinger.

Many classical music has its origin in folk music as well and won't get past it very much. Of course you cannot compare Flamenco to Mozart but why should I?
It is dance, guitar and song music and the guitar part has as much richness as for examply lute music from the Renaissance. Modern flamencas imrpovise while playing and compose their own pieces. Andres Batista was professor for classical AND flamenco guitar in Madrid, he played both and composed in both styles.

If it comes to classical guitar, you cannot ignore flamenco. And even if an orchestra play Manuel de Falla or Albeniz, they simply play Flamenco the classical way.

[fumblefingers]

There is just no comparison. Flamenco simply rocks! Despite it's rustic reputation, it's just so awesome!

thanks for the post. very nice playing there.

you point out that it "rocks". yeah man. far be it for me to disagree. and of course like rock and jazz the variation is found largely in the soloist's work, as opposed to the compositional form. form wise it’s mostly the same thing repeated over and over and over.

[JohnRoss]

This is still on the flamenco theme, if anyone isn't interested don't read.

@fumblefingers

I disagree with your definition of flamenco as a "rustic folk music" because:
- 'Rustic' means 'Having a simplicity and charm that is considered typical of the countryside,' i.e. rural + charming. Andalusia is not rural and for the 18th/19th/20th century poor it wasn't charming, either. I say it is not rural because, although it has an awful lot of countryside, few people live there - it is one of the region's characteristics that it has practically no villages, it has some towns and a lot of cities but almost no rural populations. Life in Andalusia is and was urban. And the temples of flamenco, Seville, Jerez, etc. are not just cities, they're big ones.
- In many ways, flamenco isn't really a folk music, though it has some folk characteristics, the lack of notation, the mouth-to-mouth transmission, etc. But flamenco developed as music for performance, for the stage, rather than as music that gypsies played for each other. It is as much art music as folk music, or more, and always was.

a lot of them lived outside the borders of towns, and in the country.

I don't know where you've got that from, but it isn't in the blog post you quote.

occupatons ranged from blacksmithing to begging? see rustic.

There's nothing rural or charming about either blacksmithing or begging. On the contrary, blacksmithing is a kind of industrial activity, and it would be a pretty dim beggar who did his day's work in the middle of the empty countryside.

For the cultured classes of Spain, until recently flamenco was nothing more than a “thing of the lower classes”; of taverns, violence, riotousness, drunkenness, and in the past, of beggars, thieves, bandits and gypsies.

This is an overstatement. The consumers of flamenco, those who pay to hear it, have always been the relatively well-off. Yes, it had connotations of the sinful and forbidden, which was precisely one of its attractions for the repressed Spanish Catholic middle classes.

It was not until 1922 that a group of intellectuals (which included the composer Manuel de Falla and the young poet Federico García Lorca) organised a “concurso the cante jondo”. The first time that the intellectuals of Andalucia acted as a group to study, understand and for want of a better word, protect flamenco.

Yes, but... The concurso was not organized because "famenco had almost completely been forgotten," but because it had become too popular. It had spread outside Andalusia and become fashionable in Madrid and Barcelona, and people like Falla and Lorca felt it was becoming commercial, debased - any old rubbish was being presented as flamenco. They were, frankly, intellectual snobs, though what they did was very important.

the andalucian population was unable to make use of such terrain – it was nearly always under armed guard.

Therefore, they had to live in the cities.

These abandoned people nurtured what is known today as flamenco – an oral history of their lives and concerns; from the prisons, forges, mines, charity hospitals, and the gypsy “barrios”; from a people terrorised by poverty, superstitions and ignorance comes flamenco.

'Barrio' means a district or quarter of a city. You don't have barrios in villages.

Flamenco has gone through a metamorphosis? or perhaps renaissance? and that (partially) enables the arguments here.

Now you're really mixing things up. Falla et al and their successors did a fine job of conservation, preserving the traditional before it was lost. The metamorphoses it underwent later, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, were due to record producers or artists themselves trying to make flamenco accessible to a broader public, almost the contrary of the intentions of the Concurso de cante jondo.

[czardas]

Here's my take on it: 123flamenco.com History