++This becomes problematic. there often is a temptation to draw direct,
biological-like lineages for musical instruments
I'm pleased to say, I've never once, or even twice been tempted, but
then again it, depends on what Webster's meaning of temptation is.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Arto Wikla"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
> Dear Eugene,
>
> Thank you for responding.
>
> ++Please see comments below.
>
> Best regards,
> Marion
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mar 17, 2005 8:31 AM
> To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>
> I've written quite a bit on my thoughts of this in correspondence with
> various characters on and off list, so I'll try to "focus" here as much as
> I'm able.
>
> At 07:47 PM 3/16/2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote:
> >In biology (and Eugene will correct me if I am wrong) if something is
> >sufficiently difficult to classify,
> >we just create a new category for it.
>
>
> Oh my. I laid out an essay in private correspondence on a similar
> topic. We were all taught in biology class that all things were divided
> into kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. However,
> in the case of North America's bullhead catfishes, for example,
> organologists weren't happy with such a simple classification scheme and
> introduced at least five subcategories between order and family as well as
> a few more above. You can find similar or even more complicated cases for
> almost any living thing. The truth is that no taxonomic categorization
> beyond the species level has much real meaning. It is all superimposed to
> facilitate conceptualization for the people who think about such things.
>
> ++Tools for understanding are important for the development of expertise,
> one element of which is understanding of domain symmetry.
>
> >One of the challenges that we have that biologists don't have is that
> instruments
> >can be redesigned and built much faster than genes can mutate and new
species
> >can emerge...
>
> >Certainly, more specific definitions would be most helpful in a
constructing
> >a taxonomy of instruments much in the same way that biologists construct
> >taxonomies of living things...
>
> This becomes problematic. there often is a temptation to draw direct,
> biological-like lineages for musical instruments. The fact is that this
> rarely is possible. As complicated as they are, the cladistics of biology
> are far easier to grasp; all living things are by necessity directly
> derived from the living things that came before them. It takes a couple
> horses to make a horse. Put a horse and a donkey together, and you get an
> obviously intermediary hybrid, the mule. Nobody is giving birth to dragons
> and chimeras.
>
> However, no luthier is confined to the rules of heredity and can generate
> chimeras at whim. Luthiers are free to draw inspiration from anywhere and
> are not required (and sometimes not able) to disclose the source of/seed
> for their instrumental inspiration. There often are no direct
relationships
> evident between intermediary steps, and if you try to concoct a cladogram
> of necked chordophones, you'll end up with crossing and undefinable or
> isolated branches.
>
> ++It would be nice if we could classify musical instruments by using
> an analogy of DNA. However, this does not exist. An interesting study
> (that I don't have time to do) would be to develop an ontology of musical
> instruments and their characteristics at a fine-grained level of detail.
>
> Thanks to the "definite parentage" aspect of organisms, Linnaeus could
> establish a system for giving all living things a name that would be
> universally recognizable without the fear that an abrupt new creation
would
> generate chaos. With musical instruments, the "rightness" of a term is
> defined by common usage. One conceptual thing can correctly carry many
> regional names (e.g., the rococo-era mandora/gallichon/mandola), and many
> different things can carry the same or similar names (e.g., if you asked
> for a guitar in mid-18th-c. England, you would almost certainly be given
an
> odd cittern tuned to a c-major chord). As you know, Marion, our own
> beloved mandolin is subject to some of the most horrific and variable
> chordophonic nomenclature that there is.
>
> ++Sad but true.
>
> What was initially called things like
> mandolino/mandola/amandorlino/amandorla/armandolino/etc. ad nauseam
> was a soprano lute-like thing that bears only trivial resemblance to the
> modern Neapolitan and Roman instruments and even less to American
> archtops.
>
> ++I think that in terms of classifying the instrument (within the plucked
> string family) the main similarity between the mandolino and Neapolitan
> varieties is approximate (but not exact) overall size and not much beyond
that.
>
> Another example that constitutes a bit of a personal pet peeve:
> Sobell in the UK built a big, flat-bodied mandolin. Ambivalent or
ignorant
> of the fact that similar things were already called "mandola" by ca. 1900
> mandolin orchestras, he leafed through a book, saw a renaissance cittern
> pictured, and decided to name his concoction "cittern." The terminology
> has become widespread amongst the Irish and Scottish music crowds, so it
is
> now correct to call certain big mandolins "cittern" whether I like it or
not.
>
> ++I have noticed this and I always thought it was odd that two very
different
> instruments should have the same name. Not being a "cittern" player of
> either variety this has not annoyed me as much as it would if I were. (I
have
> continued to resist buying one, so far.) Actually the so-called modern
"citterns"
> used for Celtic music are really closer, in my opinion, to the Puerto
Rican Cuatro,
> which also has 10 steel strings (but tuned in 4ths :)) because they both
> occupy about the same position in the ethnic music of specific groups
(along
> with the Cuban tres, etc.). As far as I can tell, the main distinguishing
> characteristic between an octave mandolin and a Celtic cittern is the
number
> of courses. A Celtic cittern is like having a mandolin and mandola in the
> same instrument. I suppose it is more convenient that way.
>
> Best,
> Eugene
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
