"What and how things are created is important,
as well as the conviction of the creator"

Daniel Muñoz
Translation: Norman Paul Kliman

New flamenco choreography is a hot topic between critics and aficionados. Shows don't offer many new ideas, except for the near worship of individual dancers.

Today you can only point out two or three choreographers at most, and I hope to be one of them. I try to put a lot of sense into my work, a lot of study... I've learned from the best choreographers from two generations. Before they retired, I was lucky enough to work with Pilar López, Antonio, Mari Emma, Gades, José Granero, and I can assure you that none of my work is superficial; everything is there for a reason. Whether or not critics understand it is another matter.

That doesn't mean that dance has to be narrative.

No, no, choreography doesn't have to follow a story, although I'm usually in favor of that because when I dance I want to express things, but it isn't necessary. Choreography is moving people through dance. Steps and group movement.

Is it complicated to give meaning to everything happening on the stage?

Sure it is. It depends on what's led up to that moment, from selecting the music and the story, the knowledge of the author, to the piece that you're going to represent. To those things you add the knowledge and genius of each person. But you won't see any of that today. The ones on top aren't seriously committed. For me, Canales is the most serious of the three top names (Canales, Cortés, Sara Baras). Canales has worked with Lluis Pascual, and he goes to the trouble of working with a stage director... We choreographer/dancers have to know about both areas, because there are some great professionals in dance, but they suddenly want to be stage directors, script writers, and everything else.

The origin of this problem could be business-related, due to the complication and expense of forming a complete team of well-qualified professionals.

No, just the opposite, because the top names generate a lot of money, and they can afford that. Someone like me might not be able to; smaller companies might face that problem. I don't have that problem because they hire me as a choreographer and I work with my team or by myself, and I do my job. Joaquín has been doing Pasión Gitana for seven years. As an artist, if I spent seven years doing the same thing it'd just kill me; it'd bore me to death. That's reprehensible, and for that reason he can't be considered a choreographer; because he's hardly put together anything. And Sara Baras... Oh, my God. One of her numbers, "Sensaciones," was nominated for the Max awards (Spanish awards for theater and dance). That's just...

Work is usually awarded for success and popularity.

Everyone knows who she is, but they're not choreographers because they haven't designed a thing in their lives.

Why do you suppose they don't hire a choreographer?

Because in this world, especially in flamenco, it's always "me, me, me." And if there's room for anyone else, it's "me," too. You know what I mean. Copyrights are another important matter. There's a lot of money at stake.

You've worked with Fura del Baus. What possibilities do you see in combining flamenco with the avant-garde?

All kinds of possibilities. There's no choice; first of all, because there are no flamenco set designers. Set designers are set designers, not just flamenco artists. They can work just as well in the opera, in the theater, and in flamenco. That's why there's crap out there; because instead of hiring professionals they try to do it all themselves.

Then it seems that the deficiencies of a large and famous company are also those of a smaller one with modest funding.

The same. This is such a big thing! Flamenco is so big that an unfocused company can go anywhere and enjoy success. That's the strength of flamenco; because a rock group has got to be good, or else it's not going anywhere. And even then... It's the same with classic ballet: it has to be extremely good to go anywhere, but in flamenco everyone's great. Flamenco has a special place in the world. It's a unique folklore; there's nothing else like it. And the driving force and musical depth can move just about anyone. That's why there's so much abuse. Anyone can make a living at this.

If the market is too tolerant, do things stagnate?

The market is becoming aware. Anyone could go to Japan in the past; not anymore. People would even go there and come back rich. Things change when more information gets around. It doesn't matter if the focus is orthodox or avant-garde. What and how things are created is important, as well as the conviction of the creator. Art is great because it has no limits. You can mix anything, even flamenco and contemporary. The public isn't going to worry about the classification of each step. People just want the story to work; it has to be logical. You have to know why you're doing each step, why your body wants to do that, why you decide to put a step in at the right moment, for whatever reason. It's not a question of whether or not you're working within tradition, but rather who's doing it.

So you're saying that the creator's concerns are also cultural.

Right. The big problem in flamenco is cultural limitation. Flamenco artists are, historically, geniuses on the stage, and freaks on the street.

Haven't things changed?

They're changing... People are acquiring culture and getting an education. Until recently you could never take flamenco artists with you anywhere, go anywhere to have a drink, or introduce them to anyone, because they'd embarrass you in front of anyone... You'll see, when you publish this. They're going to kill me.

In the attempt to broaden horizons, could it be that flamenco artists don't know who to go to?

The character and ego of flamenco artists don't let them go to anyone. A clear sign of that is saying that whatever you don't do isn't flamenco. It's a sign of ignorance and insecurity. A lot of people in flamenco have been making money from the same thing for thirty or forty years. Some have even reached the top for that reason. I'll be the first to say that they're great, but I think that having that creative genius and spending your whole life doing two dances is a cultural shame.

Do big names make for a great show?

No, that's the big mistake. Everyone wants to put together a big show, and that's doing it backwards. Instead of trying to create a super-company, you have to design short numbers; a short dance with a story. That's life... You don't read "War and Peace" in nursery school.

What do you think of those that say that it's all been done?

My opinion is that everything is undone, and that critics are also responsible for it. Absolutely everything can be worked on. We're at the very beginning.

Flamenco aesthetics are stagnant. Recordings are done by the same producers and arrangements are chaotic... Is there some kind of fear to hire professionals from outside of flamenco?

Yes, maybe so, but there are a lot of people that want to work with a lot of flamenco; professionals from other areas. I've designed shows that nobody wanted to take on, and I work with people from outside of flamenco.

Some people criticize films like Saura's "Flamenco." In that case they criticized him because it seems that they thought he'd created a product that's typical of someone from outside of flamenco.

Even me; I'm from Valencia. They even badmouth people that we should be honored to have working us. Saura's "Flamenco" was like a launching pad for us. We're working three times what we were before that film.

It's a shame there aren't more people like Saura. You don't have to know how to dance alegrías to make a great film on flamenco.

Critics are the ones that should have to know compás. They should at least be able to rap it out on a table. They don't even know that and they dare to criticize dance steps. They can't even rap out a bulería on a table... And besides, talking about others is a pretty low way to make a living. It's being a gossip.

revista@flamenco-world.com