.And regarding organology, there often isn't a "true evolutionary lineage" in the sense of a single line. Borrowing from several working instrument types to arrive at something new and altogether different occurs with frequency (again, the early Neapolitan mandolin, as a relatively recent invention, is an excellent and relatively well-documented example). The bouzouki you mention below, Mark, is another good one, built to a saz-like structural paradigm before the wide popularity of the mandolin in the 19th-c., but most often to a generally mandolin-like one after. Chimeras don't exist in a zoological world subject to the laws that govern inheritance and evolution; they're relatively common to musical instrument types.
Eugene -----Original Message----- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Warren Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:55 PM To: lute mailing list list Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chitarrone One problem with borrowing from biological taxonomy in determining relationships between lute-like instruments is the possibility of coincidental similarities. In biology, "convergent evolution" is common: organisms that evolve in parallel by responding to similar habitats, so that their shapes or functions end up resembling each other even though they're not directly related species (birds and bats, for example, or fishes and whales). Those apparent similarities can be distinguished by genetics and through the fossil record; establishing a true evolutionary lineage may be much harder to do with apparently similar musical instruments that emerged in widely separated cultures. For instance, is the bouzouki a member of the European lute family, based solely on the shape of its body and its country of origin? Is the Chinese pipa related to the Persian oud, or is it in an entirely different lineage that 'converged' to resemble other lute-like instruments around the world? They're all plucked cordophones with resonating soundboards and necks, for sure, but attempting a taxonomy much beyond that level of generality may be fraught with peril... On 10/18/2012 11:49 AM, Dan Winheld wrote: > Until musical instruments can mate & propagate on their own, the > biological systems for classification become a strained analogy that > must, at some point, break down. I'm still waiting for my 8 course > tenor lute and my 13 course Baroque lute to get together some night > and bless our happy household with a baby 10 course lute some fine > morning. > > (And the lauto? And what about the flat-backed Angelique by Gibson?) > > -This could spiral out of control, like Moondog's song about human > rights. "Enough about human rights! What about whale rights? What > about worm rights? What about germ rights?" etc, etc. > > On 10/18/2012 7:32 AM, Braig, Eugene wrote: >> I actually believe those who think about such stuff are usually >> operating under "some form of generally acceptable classification >> system for 'lutes'," either as written in some source or another or >> devised in their own heads based upon discussions like these. >> Organology certainly hasn't shied from lute kin. >> >> It's the specific notion of a biological-style key that I think would >> likely prove more cumbersome than practical if including substantial >> detail. I suspect most who want to differentiate colascione from >> mandora, e.g., probably already have a decent sense of how to do so. >> I think a key could be constructed--I don't know, maybe already has >> been--but I suspect a key in this domain would be most useful if very >> simplified and designed with the generally uninitiated in mind. Even >> among field biologists, once you know how to identify whatever you >> happen to be observing, you don't bother using keys any longer. >> >> Best, >> Eugene >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On >> Behalf Of Martyn Hodgson >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:57 AM >> To: lute mailing list list; Braig, Eugene >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chitarrone >> >> >> Dear Eugene, >> >> I agree that to produce some form of generally acceptable >> classification system for 'lutes' would be difficult and even then >> prone to error/interpretations - but surely we shouldn't not try? I >> presume, for example, Mendel's inheritance findings have been >> revised >> since his day but his contribution shouldn't be ignored. And these >> early attempts surely allowed further advances in the field: so the >> same for present day organological research. >> >> Martyn >> --- On Wed, 17/10/12, Braig, Eugene <brai...@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> From: Braig, Eugene <brai...@osu.edu> >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chitarrone >> To: "lute mailing list list" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >> Date: Wednesday, 17 October, 2012, 22:15 >> >> I don't think a dichotomous key would work. As alluded, one of the >> neat features of biological inheritance is that all things come from >> similar parental things. Not so when addressing the capricious >> whims >> of human creativity. One of my favorite examples is mandolins, with >> many structurally different things being tuned identically and many >> functionally different things with similar construction carrying the >> name. This case is not unique. >> General "taxonomy" of musical instruments has been around for a >> great >> long time (as "organology"), there are even whole scholarly >> societies >> committed to it (e.g., [1]http://www.galpinsociety.org/). However, >> such systems require a great many more judgment calls by their >> developers than biological systematics. >> Best, >> Eugenel >> >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
