>> It is possible that the bowel is an original 1733 bowel from an original >> 1733 instrument. ... >> a lot of Bach's manuscripts were used to wrap fish in, or so the story > goes. This story makes my bowel move
>> This is not a Lute as it is now configured. Neither is a Hurdy Gurdy, > which >> as I understand it was an instrument many of which were made from old > Lute >> bowels. That rather depends whether any particular lute was a carnivore or a herbivore, and whether lutes ever graze on shrubbery, if the latter. And lastly but not leastly: whether a lute is toilet-trained. >> >> The point is, having parts from an original 1733 Lute on some > non-descript >> instrument of questionable attribution or date, does not make it a 1733 >> Lute. I do not see how that argument can be disputed. If the instrument > is >> being sold as an original 1733 Lute then it is a fraud and a very bad one >> seeking to take advantage of the less knowledgeable. >> Vance Wood. Nah, pushing shrubbery for "miniature tree" that would be a fraud. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
