> To put it in a nutshell, in Spain, during most of the > 16th century five- and six-course instruments were > called "vihuelas"; four-course instruments were called > "guitars". During the late 1570s and early 1580s a > "new" instrument was developed: the five-course > instrument we call "baroque guitar", which was called > "guitarra espaņola". But didn't this appellido come from outside of the country, while locals had biguela?
> I should stress that five-course > instruments were in use before the 1580s, and that the > novelty of the instrument is expressed in several > sources of the time, which claim that Vicente Espinel > was responsible of adding the fifth course to the > four-course guitar. "Claim" is it. It is also sufficient to lose the 1st course on a vihuela to obtain a guitar. > > Roman's proletarian distinction, tempting as it may > seem from a social point of view, is incorrect. We > have evidence that the vihuela was used throughout the > whole social range. The commonplace about the > "aristocratic vihuela and the popular guitar" is > simply mistaken. Really? Most vihuela music is not exactly a crowd-pleaser, it is extremely intellectualized, it requires A LOT of concentration that the lower classes could not afford either in time or in literacy. Josquin wouldn't have gone over well in a Seville barbershop/tapas bar. "Madre, non mi far monaca" would. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
