Martyn,
You see, the problem with ordinary definitions is not so much that the= y
are totally useless. Common languages are needed to communic= ate.
The problem is that these and so many other definitions are only parti= ally
useful and lack sufficient detail to cover all cases, especially the o=
utliers.
You start the drill down from common usage and then when these definit= ions
are found to require more, you continue to increases the level of deta= il.
So far, no one has posted any more detailed definitions for musical
instrument categories. My posting of the common definitions was mainly=
to elicit a more detailed set of criteria, taken from the mu= sicological
literature, for classifying plucked-stringed instruments.
It is in this context that my comments should be understood.
Best regards,
Marion
-----Original Message-----
From: Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Mar 17, 2005 12:21 AM
To: "Dr. Marion = Ceruti"
Cc: Lute Net
S= ubject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
Marion,
Thank you - but I'm not sure ths is really relevant - in particul= ar what
authority composed the Webster's entry?
rgds
M
"Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr= ote:
To clarify the semantics, one can refer to th= e following definitions
from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
Gu= itar - "a flat-bodied stringed instrument with a long fretted neck and
usua= lly six strings plucked with a pick or with the fingers."
Lute - "a = stringed instrument with a large pear-shaped body, a neck with
fretted fing= erboard, and a head with pegs for tuning."
Interestingly enough, the= re is no requirement for a guitar to have
exactly six strings, this being o= nly the usual case. Therefore, it is
not possible to conclude that any inst= rument is a guitar or not a guitar
simply by counting the number of strings= . Both lutes and guitar must
have frets but the definitions do not specify = the material from which
the frets must be made, nor do they comment on whet= her or not the frets
can be moved. (One can surmise from the definition tha= t an Arabian ood,
which has no frets, is not a lute in the exact sense of t= he word, but a
different closely related instrument.)
The Hoffmann i= nstrument in question fits the American-English definition
of a lute. The s= pecific kind of a lute is a different question. It is
not a guitar because = it does not have a flat body. If anyone has a
UK-English dictionary I would= like to know the exact wording of their
definitions, whether they are the = same or different. In any case, this
is how we use these words it in the NE= W country.
My warmest regards to all,
Marion
-----Original= Message-----
From: Martyn Hodgson
Sent: = Mar 16, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Roman Turovsky
Cc: L= ute Net
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon<= BR>
Thank you Roman,
in short - a guitar
M
Roman Turovsky wrote:
A lautenguitarre of sorts, = REMARCABLY with original double-strung
set-up.
The main visual differenc= e between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
BRIDGE POSITION, lute-li= ke for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
The instrument in questio= n has overall proportions and provenance of a
gallichone, but with that = obvious "improvement".
RT
______________
Roman M. Turovsky
http= ://polyhymnion.org/swv
> In that case - what do you think it was = converted to?
>
> M
>
> Roman Turovsky wrote:
= >> I agree this is a possibility; as you know, I think the weight of =
evidence is
>> otherwise. But are you seriously suggesting that th= is was made or
converted
>> to its present state in the period whe= n the Gallichon/Colachon was
played in
>> the 18thC?
>> = Martyn
> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th centur= y.
> RT
>
>
>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>&g= t;> In my opinion
>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the o= ld country.
>>
>>
>>
>>> how it c= ould be used is more important than what you call it.
>>> Depen= ding on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function
as
>&= gt;> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case),
renai= ssance
>>> lute,
>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombard= o ottavo.
>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the hist= ory of lute, and
there
>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse= by linguistic daftness.
>>
>> This was a gallichone (10= 0% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox),
which
>> suffered brid= ge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both
Budapest
>> Jauc= h and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during
the 19th
= >> century.
>> RT
>> --
>> http://polyhym= nion.org/torban
>>
>>
>>
>>
>= >
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>&g= t;> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
&= gt;>> To: Mathias R?
>>> Cc: Lute Net
>>> S= ubject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>>
>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in t= he
19thC (and
>>> in
>>> other shapes as well for t= hat matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>>
>>> - defining a= guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking
for
>>&g= t; trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie
lute-guitar= s
>>> and
>>> similar played music written for ordi= nary guitars. Even well into
the last
>>> century it was possib= le to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or
'gitarre'.
>>> I
>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de C=
all/Notturno
>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(La= ute)' published by Chr
>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>> /Be= rlinLichterfelds. Interestingly, the cover has two figures
playing Lauten>>> (not Gitarren).
>>>
>>> I therefore= stick to my opinion that this is probably a guitar
conversion.
>>= > You
>>> may, of course, hold an entirely different view bu= t perhaps it would
be
>>> useful to support it with evidence ra= ther than unsubstantiated
comment.
>>>
>>> regards= ,
>>>
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> = "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>>> My view is that it is most like= ly a guitar
>>>
>>> guitars have shallow bodies, b= y definition, or so I'm told.
Whatsoever
>>> this is, it is not= a guitar.
>>>
>>>>> (or rather late 19thC g= erman lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>>> lute.
>&g= t;>
>>> wandervogel lutes (if that is what you meant to say= ) have single
>>> strings, not courses (i.e. double strings)
>>>
>>>>> There are numerous examples of 18thC= Colachons/mandoras (see Gill
et
>>> als)
>>>
= >>> indeed. Why so much guesswork if the probable is so obvious.>>>
>>>> I would have thought so, if not for the= pegbox, which is rather
elegant,
>>>> and
>>>&g= t; entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>>>
>&= gt;> yes, indeed.
>>>
>>> --
>>> R= egards,
>>>
>>> Mathias
>>>
>&g= t;> --
>>>
>>> To get on or off this list see l= ist information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-ad= min/index.html
>>>
>>> Send instant messages to yo= ur online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>> --
>&= gt;>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>= ; Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.co= m
>> --
>
>
> Send instant messages to your on= line friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Send instant message= s to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.c=
om
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
