Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear James,

I would like a copy if you want to make it available. My 11-string guitar
is also tuned in the Dm tuning, like an 11c baroque lute. It is a great tuning
in 11 or 13  courses. 

(For some reason, it turns into a clarinet every time I play Weiss on it. :)

Best regards,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 12:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

In a message dated 3/17/2005 4:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yesterday I played the 2 Sor pieces from
http://polyhymnion.org/swv/opus-2.html
on my 13-course. Did it turn it into a guitar?

Hi Roman,

  I was just thinking some of Sor's etudes might sound really well on a 
Baroque lute!  I arranged some Baron for guitar, using a tuning similar to the 
Baroque "d minor"; maybe I should call my instrument a "guitarbo". :)

James

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[JEdwardsMusic]

In a message dated 3/17/2005 4:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yesterday I played the 2 Sor pieces from
http://polyhymnion.org/swv/opus-2.html
on my 13-course. Did it turn it into a guitar?

Hi Roman,

  I was just thinking some of Sor's etudes might sound really well on a 
Baroque lute!  I arranged some Baron for guitar, using a tuning similar to the 
Baroque "d minor"; maybe I should call my instrument a "guitarbo". :)

James

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear Arto,

>...he told me he would like to build a lute himself. I said that
I know where you can order drawings of original lutes. He answered: "No, 
no, I want to make it just from my own ideas." If that guy some day made
something, which he called "lute", what was that thing afterall? Was it a 
lute if he called it so?   ;-)

Even with a kit, many of hours would be required. With no drawings and
no experience I doubt that the instrument was completed. 

Thanks for sharing.

Best regards,
Marion



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Arto Wikla]

Dear all

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:

> Put a horse and a donkey together, and you get an obviously intermediary
> hybrid, the mule. Nobody is giving birth to dragons and chimeras.

This reminds me of an old story that happened to me years ago. I have 
told the story also here years ago, but perhaps all have not heard it:
Once upon a time I went to an Irish pub here in Finland - yes there were 
and are such things also here in Finland. I played the spoons with the 
house band, and later one of the real players, an Irishman, came to talk
with me. He was very exited when I told that I play the lute in "real 
life". And he told me he would like to build a lute himself. I said that
I know where you can order drawings of original lutes. He answered: "No, 
no, I want to make it just from my own ideas." If that guy some day made
something, which he called "lute", what was that thing afterall? Was it a 
lute if he called it so?   ;-)

All the best

Arto



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

 A better, more general framework for classifying objects (and
concepts that have no physical counterpart for that matter) is
the ontology. This framework does not depend on constraints 
associated with biology or DNA.

I have not seen speciffically a plucked-string ontology but
maybe CYC has an upper ontology into which the concepts could
be entered. I don't have time to do it myself, but maybe a
musicology student with a good computer background, or a
musician working on  a degree in computer science might
want  to do this as a project.

Cheers,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 17, 2005 10:39 AM
To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon


++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]>; 
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
> (th

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Michael Thames]

++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]>; 
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 

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Roman Turovsky]

> Please, Roman  - I was v careful to insert the adjective 'only' in front of
> 'music' ; perhaps I ought to have gone even further and made it clear I'm
> speaking about the instrument in the normal guitar tuning. I can't think what
> else wld have been done with it in the mid 19thC.
There are a few possibilities


> 
> To my mind the only difficulty, as you pointed out earlier, is the double
> stringing;  did the german  lauten-gitarre ever had double strung courses?
Not as I recall
RT



> 
> Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mathias,
>> 
>> Thank you fr this - I'm not quite sure the point you're making. I
>> specifically said that we ought not to think of V's instrument as a guitar -
>> my comment point about the tuning he might have employed was an altogether
>> different point; I'm sorry if this was not clear enough. As has been said
>> before, the key to naming is usage - if the only music played on an
>> instrument
>> is guitar music then what ought that instrument to be thought of?
> Yesterday I played the 2 Sor pieces from
> http://polyhymnion.org/swv/opus-2.html
> on my 13-course. Did it turn it into a guitar?
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> rgds
>> 
>> Martyn
>> 
>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>> Incidentally, on this business of early steps towards using 'old'
>>> instruments
>>> in performance,
>>> are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man
>>> and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc
>>> Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it
>>> was a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning
>>> rather like the contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings.
>> is there any precedence of a performer who played the lute and called it
>> a guitar? No, I suppose. There may have been some cases of editions or
>> performances where guitars were called lutes, out of predilection for
>> the air of antiquity, i. e. middle ages from a romantic viewpoint, as
>> you say.
>> 
>>> Am I suggesting we therefore call V's instrument a guitar? - No - a bridge
>>> too far.
>> 
>> Players as well as editors like de Call were well aware of differences
>> and could tell one from another. You speak of predilection for pretence
>> of antiquity, yourself. So, why should we call the lute a guitar? Out of
>> mere predilection?
>> 
>> Quitting discussion here,
>> 
>> Mathias
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
> 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
Please, Roman  - I was v careful to insert the adjective 'only' in front of 
'music' ; perhaps I ought to have gone even further and made it clear I'm 
speaking about the instrument in the normal guitar tuning. I can't think what 
else wld have been done with it in the mid 19thC.
 
To my mind the only difficulty, as you pointed out earlier, is the double 
stringing;  did the german  lauten-gitarre ever had double strung courses?
 
rgds
 
M

Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mathias,
> 
> Thank you fr this - I'm not quite sure the point you're making. I
> specifically said that we ought not to think of V's instrument as a guitar -
> my comment point about the tuning he might have employed was an altogether
> different point; I'm sorry if this was not clear enough. As has been said
> before, the key to naming is usage - if the only music played on an instrument
> is guitar music then what ought that instrument to be thought of?
Yesterday I played the 2 Sor pieces from
http://polyhymnion.org/swv/opus-2.html
on my 13-course. Did it turn it into a guitar?
RT




> 
> rgds
> 
> Martyn
> 
> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>> Incidentally, on this business of early steps towards using 'old' instruments
>> in performance, 
>> are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man
>> and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc
>> Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it
>> was a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning
>> rather like the contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings.
> is there any precedence of a performer who played the lute and called it
> a guitar? No, I suppose. There may have been some cases of editions or
> performances where guitars were called lutes, out of predilection for
> the air of antiquity, i. e. middle ages from a romantic viewpoint, as
> you say.
> 
>> Am I suggesting we therefore call V's instrument a guitar? - No - a bridge
>> too far.
> 
> Players as well as editors like de Call were well aware of differences
> and could tell one from another. You speak of predilection for pretence
> of antiquity, yourself. So, why should we call the lute a guitar? Out of
> mere predilection?
> 
> Quitting discussion here,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

> 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.
Finer the grinding, more detail lost, FYI.
RT 



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

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."  

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

   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

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

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.


 >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.

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.  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.  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.

Best,
Eugene 



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Roman Turovsky]

> Mathias,
> 
> Thank you fr this - I'm not quite sure the point you're making.  I
> specifically said that we ought not to think of V's instrument as a guitar -
> my comment point about the tuning he might have employed was an altogether
> different point; I'm sorry if this was not clear enough.   As has been said
> before, the key to naming is usage - if the only music played on an instrument
> is guitar music then what ought that instrument to be thought of?
Yesterday I played the 2 Sor pieces from
http://polyhymnion.org/swv/opus-2.html
on my 13-course. Did it turn it into a guitar?
RT




> 
> rgds
> 
> Martyn
> 
> "Mathias R?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Incidentally, on this business of early steps towards using 'old' instruments
>> in performance, 
>> are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man
>> and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc
>> Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it
>> was a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning
>> rather like the contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings.
> is there any precedence of a performer who played the lute and called it
> a guitar? No, I suppose. There may have been some cases of editions or
> performances where guitars were called lutes, out of predilection for
> the air of antiquity, i. e. middle ages from a romantic viewpoint, as
> you say.
> 
>> Am I suggesting we therefore call V's instrument a guitar? - No - a bridge
>> too far.
> 
> Players as well as editors like de Call were well aware of differences
> and could tell one from another. You speak of predilection for pretence
> of antiquity, yourself. So, why should we call the lute a guitar? Out of
> mere predilection?
> 
> Quitting discussion here,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Martyn Hodgson]

Mathias,
 
Thank you fr this - I'm not quite sure the point you're making.  I specifically 
said that we ought not to think of V's instrument as a guitar - my comment 
point about the tuning he might have employed was an altogether different 
point; I'm sorry if this was not clear enough.   As has been said before, the 
key to naming is usage - if the only music played on an instrument is guitar 
music then what ought that instrument to be thought of?
 
rgds
 
Martyn

"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidentally, on this business of early steps towards using 'old' instruments 
> in performance, 
> are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man 
> and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc 
> Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it 
> was a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning 
> rather like the contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings. 
is there any precedence of a performer who played the lute and called it
a guitar? No, I suppose. There may have been some cases of editions or
performances where guitars were called lutes, out of predilection for
the air of antiquity, i. e. middle ages from a romantic viewpoint, as
you say.

> Am I suggesting we therefore call V's instrument a guitar? - No - a bridge 
> too far.

Players as well as editors like de Call were well aware of differences
and could tell one from another. You speak of predilection for pretence
of antiquity, yourself. So, why should we call the lute a guitar? Out of
mere predilection?

Quitting discussion here,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Mathias Rösel]

> Incidentally, on this business of  early steps towards using 'old' 
> instruments in performance, 
> are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man 
> and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc 
> Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it 
> was a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning 
> rather like the  contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings. 
is there any precedence of a performer who played the lute and called it
a guitar? No, I suppose. There may have been some cases of editions or
performances where guitars were called lutes, out of predilection for
the air of antiquity, i. e. middle ages from a romantic viewpoint, as
you say.

> Am I suggesting we therefore call V's instrument a guitar?  - No - a bridge 
> too far.

Players as well as editors like de Call were well aware of differences
and could tell one from another. You speak of predilection for pretence
of antiquity, yourself. So, why should we call the lute a guitar? Out of
mere predilection?

Quitting discussion here,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: (Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon) - theorbo in the 19thC

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
What about all the guitar music which doesn't get anywhere near the higher 
frets? eg the De Call I mentioned - admittedly this is an early 20thC edition 
but, you see, my thesis is that all this mock practice reflects an earlier 
19thC predilection for pretence antiquity probably best epitomised by the 
Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood of which you'll know infinitely more than me.
 
Incidentally, on this business of  early steps towards using 'old' instruments 
in performance, 
are you aware of the 1845 concert in which Ventura (the harp-lute-guitar man 
and principal competitor of Edward Light) played the theorbo (Galpin Soc 
Journal 1989). There's no evidence as to how it was tuned (and indeed if it was 
a theorbo or an archlute) but I suspect it may have used a guitar tuning rather 
like the  contemporary 'Bass Guitars' with open bass strings.  Am I suggesting 
we therefore call V's instrument a guitar?  - No - a bridge too far.
 
rgds
 
Martyn
 
 
 
 Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
When it was first built: whatever similar to the mandora Ms. in Brussels.
Galant material mainly.
The instrument fell into disrepair, and had its top redone in the 19th
century fashion, bridge moved.
And now: IT DOESN"T HAVE ENOUGH NECK FOR THE TYPICAL GIULIANI/SOR PAP.
So it was MOST LIKELY used in some kind of repertoire IM VOLKSTON.
RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://polyhymnion.org/swv

> And what do you think they played on these instruments if not guitar music
> (and please don't say 'folk music')
> 
> Rgds
> 
> M
> 
> Roman Turovsky wrote:
> Only in the same sense as other lutes rebuilt into guitars in that era. In
> other words: NOT.
> Look at the Jauch in Budapest. It has the same "adaptation", but it's no
> guitar.
> RT 
> __
> Roman M. Turovsky
> http://polyhymnion.org/swv
> 
>> 
>> 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 difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
>> BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
>> The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>>>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played
>>>> in
>>>> the 18thC? 
>>>> Martyn
>>> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
>>> RT
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>>>> In my opinion
>>>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>>>> lute,
>>>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>>>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>>>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>>>> 
>>>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>>>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>>>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>>>> century.
>>>> RT
>>>> -- 
>>>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>>>> To: Mathias R?
>>>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in t

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

Marion,
 
Thank you - but I'm not sure ths is really relevant - in particular what 
authority composed the Webster's entry?
 
rgds
 
M
"Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To clarify the semantics, one can refer to the following definitions from 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Guitar - "a flat-bodied stringed instrument with a long fretted neck and 
usually six strings plucked with a pick or with the fingers."

Lute - "a stringed instrument with a large pear-shaped body, a neck with 
fretted fingerboard, and a head with pegs for tuning."

Interestingly enough, there is no requirement for a guitar to have exactly six 
strings, this being only the usual case. Therefore, it is not possible to 
conclude that any instrument 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 whether or not the frets can be moved. (One can surmise from the definition 
that an Arabian ood, which has no frets, is not a lute in the exact sense of 
the word, but a different closely related instrument.)

The Hoffmann instrument in question fits the American-English definition of a 
lute. The specific 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 NEW 
country.

My warmest regards to all,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: Martyn Hodgson 
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Roman Turovsky 
Cc: Lute Net 
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon


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 difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>> the 18thC? 
>> Martyn
> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
> RT
> 
> 
>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>> In my opinion 
>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>> lute,
>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>> 
>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>> century.
>> RT
>> -- 
>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>> To: Mathias R? 
>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>> 
>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>> in
>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>> 
>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>> and
>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>> I
>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>> /BerlinLic

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear James,

To enter this lucrative business, maybe I could correct the correction
and go back to the original "renaissance flute." (Now, to develop
toe patterns where the fingers would go...:)

Best,
Marion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

In a message dated 3/16/2005 5:37:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
++Unfortunately this has just been demonstrated graphically among a group
of people who should know better. Without mentioning the name of the
organization specifically, when a (past not current) membership directory
was published and distributed, someone had gone through the listing and
changed the word "lute" to "flute" wherever it occurred. So it listed my one
of my instruments as "renaissance flute."

  I have received inquiries from prospective brides, when referred from a 
local music academy, as to my availability for playing guitar and renaissance 
flute at their wedding... I should probably charge a lot more. :)

James

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[JEdwardsMusic]

In a message dated 3/16/2005 5:37:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
++Unfortunately this has just been demonstrated graphically among a group
of people who should know better. Without mentioning the name of the
organization specifically, when a (past not current) membership directory
was published and distributed, someone had gone through the listing and
changed the word "lute" to "flute" wherever it occurred. So it listed my one
of my instruments as "renaissance flute."

  I have received inquiries from prospective brides, when referred from a 
local music academy, as to my availability for playing guitar and renaissance 
flute at their wedding... I should probably charge a lot more. :)

James

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear Howard,

Please see my comments below.

Have a nice evening,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: Howard Posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 5:08 PM
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote:

> These terms are in common
> usage. I am not particularly satisfied that this is the best that can be done
> with definitions, but this is what the words mean in American English.

I'm guessing that 99.999%, give or take a few, of the persons who've used
the word "guitar" in the last 100 years have not looked up the word in
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

++Probably not. Lexicographer derive their definitions from common
usage. Most people don't care about exact definitions unless they come
across an object that is difficult to classify. Even then, most people don't
care about classifying objects. People in specialized fields like to have
better, more useful definitions of words. Sometimes they are hard to find,
not only for instruments but for lots of other things, according to my
experience.

> When
> most people think of a lute, they think of a renaissance lute.

++I say this only because the dictionary shows a picture of a renaissance lute
(as opposed to a baroque lute). I have assumed that since ren lutes are more
commonly seen here that most people would picture one when they think of
lutes. Again, there is the idea of common usage of terms that refer to
familiar objects, as opposed to uncommon objects that are harder to classify.

When most people think of a lute, they think of an instrument that you hold
crosswise under your lower lip and blow across a hole in the top of the head
joint. 

++Unfortunately this has just been demonstrated graphically among a group
of people who should know better. Without mentioning the name of the
organization specifically, when a (past not current) membership directory
was published and distributed, someone had gone through the listing and
changed the word "lute" to "flute" wherever it occurred. So it listed my one
of my instruments as "renaissance flute."

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary may be useful for getting them in
the right neighborhood of meaning, but it's utterly useless for a discussion
among a bunch of people who know more about it than a non-specialist
lexicographer.

++As I said before, it is good place to start. (But this implies, as I am sure
you can tell from my analysis of the definitions, that it is not a good place 
to end.)
And on that note, I will end.

HP

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Howard Posner]

Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote:

> These terms are in common
> usage. I am not particularly satisfied that this is the best that can be done
> with definitions, but this is what the words mean in American English.

I'm guessing that 99.999%, give or take a few, of the persons who've used
the word "guitar" in the last 100 years have not looked up the word in
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

> When
> most people think of a lute, they think of a renaissance lute.

When most people think of a lute, they think of an instrument that you hold
crosswise under your lower lip and blow across a hole in the top of the head
joint.  Webster's Collegiate Dictionary may be useful for getting them in
the right neighborhood of meaning, but it's utterly useless for a discussion
among a bunch of people who know more about it than a non-specialist
lexicographer.


HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear Mathias,

Thank you for resending the URL. I believe I saw this earlier but I did not
have time to open the link then. The danger for me in finding out about new
instruments is that I might want one. Already when I open the front door
to my house a few mandolins fall off of the pile. :)

All the best,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Lutelist 
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

Dear Marion,

yes, the mandora in question is a 18th century lute with 6 to 9 courses.
There is an recently published article available in the net

http://www.marincola.com/

click on LuteBot (left margin), and then #5 (middle). There, you will
find Pietro Prosser's thesis on the mandora / the calichon.

Best wishes,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

Dear Arto and everyone,

Thank you for bring up this point. I have offered the definitions according
to the way that we use the terminology here. These terms are in common
usage. I am not particularly satisfied that this is the best that can be done
with definitions, but this is what the words mean in American English. When
most people think of a lute, they thinkof a renaissance lute. Most people
in the US are not familiar with the many different kinds of lutes that are
familiar to us but you have to start somewhere.

I have already pointed out one consequence of the definition of "lute." 
Specifically, the definition of a lute excludes the ood. (And I'm not in the
mood to be so rude as to exclude the ood.) Another interesting feature is
the ambiguity in the word "long" in reference to the neck of a guitar. Does
it mean long compared to the body of the instrument, or long compared to
the necks of other, smaller instruments such as a mandolin?

We want our definitions to be crisp and exact so that we can classify any
given object with certainty. However, the definitions themselves are not
exact so we don't have the luxury of certainty as to their exact  meaning
in all cases. This is particularly true in borderline cases. Interestingly 
enough
this uncertainty as to clasifications is not limited to musical instruments.
It also occurs in states of matter and information. 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.

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. The terminology in any specialized field becomes
a challenge because we don't have precise words for every possible object
that could exist.

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. For example one of the requirements for a lute in the Webster's
definition is that it must have pegs. What if all the other characteristics of 
the
lute were the same, e.g. pear-shaped body and frets, but the tuning system
were different? Would it still be a lute? According to Webster, no. However,
the term in general usage for an instrument of this description is the 
"guitar-lute"
not surprisingly because it has characteristics of both families of instruments
but fails to meet all of the requirements to be classified as either.

If you have a musicology dictionary, I would be interested to know what
it has to say about defining charactersitics in genera and the subject 
instrument
in particular, assuming you have time to check it out.

Again, Arto, thank you for sharing your ideas. I extend the most respectful,
cordial, and friendly greetings from my country to yours.

Marion

-Original Message-
From: Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:48 PM
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon


Dear all

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote:

> To clarify the semantics, one can refer to the following definitions 
> from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Actually the general dictionaries are not a reliable source of definitions
of special subjects as musicology or especially classification of 
instruments...:-/

still, all the best

Arto



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

> Guitar - "a flat-bodied stringed instrument with a long fretted neck and 
> usually six strings plucked with a pick or with the fingers."

quite exact. During 19th and 20th centuries there were quite a lot of
types in existence, differing in size and number of strings, after all.

> Interestingly enough, there is no requirement for a guitar to have exactly 
> six strings, this being only the usual case. Therefore, it is not possible to 
> conclude that any instrument is a guitar or not a guitar simply by counting 
> the number of strings.

yes, indeed.

Mathias

> 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 whether or 
> not the frets can be moved. (One can surmise from the definition that an 
> Arabian ood, which has no frets, is not a lute in the exact sense of the 
> word, but a different closely related instrument.)
> 
> The Hoffmann instrument in question fits the American-English definition of a 
> lute. The specific 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 
> NEW country.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

Dear Marion,

yes, the mandora in question is a 18th century lute with 6 to 9 courses.
There is an recently published article available in the net

http://www.marincola.com/

click on LuteBot (left margin), and then #5 (middle). There, you will
find Pietro Prosser's thesis on the mandora / the calichon.

Best wishes,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

 "Martyn Hodgson"  schrieb:
> Thank you Roman,
> in short - a guitar

well, everyone is free to pray the way he or she wants to.

Regards

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Arto Wikla]

Dear all

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Dr. Marion Ceruti wrote:

> To clarify the semantics, one can refer to the following definitions 
> from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Actually the general dictionaries are not a reliable source of definitions
of special subjects as musicology or especially classification of 
instruments...:-/

still, all the best

Arto



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

To clarify the semantics, one can refer to the following definitions from 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Guitar - "a flat-bodied stringed instrument with a long fretted neck and 
usually six strings plucked with a pick or with the fingers."

Lute - "a stringed instrument with a large pear-shaped body, a neck with 
fretted fingerboard, and a head with pegs for tuning."

Interestingly enough, there is no requirement for a guitar to have exactly six 
strings, this being only the usual case. Therefore, it is not possible to 
conclude that any instrument 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 whether or not the frets can be moved. (One can surmise from the definition 
that an Arabian ood, which has no frets, is not a lute in the exact sense of 
the word, but a different closely related instrument.)

The Hoffmann instrument in question fits the American-English definition of a 
lute. The specific 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 NEW 
country.

My warmest regards to all,
Marion

-Original Message-
From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 11:48 AM
To: Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Lute Net 
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon


Thank you Roman,
 
in short - a guitar
 
M  
 

Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A lautenguitarre of sorts, REMARCABLY with original double-strung set-up.
The main visual difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>> the 18thC? 
>> Martyn
> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
> RT
> 
> 
>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>> In my opinion 
>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>> lute,
>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>> 
>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>> century.
>> RT
>> -- 
>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>> To: Mathias R? 
>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>> 
>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>> in
>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>> 
>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>> and
>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>> I
>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. Interestingly, the cover has two figures playing Lauten
>>> (not Gitarren).
>>> 
>>> I t

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

Only in the same sense as other lutes rebuilt into guitars in that era. In
other words: NOT.
Look at the Jauch in Budapest. It has the same "adaptation", but it's no
guitar.
RT 
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://polyhymnion.org/swv

> 
> Thank you Roman,
> 
> in short - a guitar
> 
> M  
> 
> 
> Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A lautenguitarre of sorts, REMARCABLY with original double-strung set-up.
> The main visual difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
> BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
> The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>>> the 18thC? 
>>> Martyn
>> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>>> In my opinion 
>>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>>> lute,
>>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>>> 
>>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>>> century.
>>> RT
>>> -- 
>>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>>> To: Mathias R?
>>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>>> 
>>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>>> in
>>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>>> 
>>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>>> and
>>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>>> I
>>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>>>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Martyn
>>>> 
>>>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>>>> 
>>>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>>>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>>>> 
>>>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>>>> lute.
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>>>> 
>>>> yes, indeed.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Mathias
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>> 
>>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>> --
>> 
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

When it was first built: whatever similar to the mandora Ms. in Brussels.
Galant material mainly.
The instrument fell into disrepair, and had its top redone in the 19th
century fashion, bridge moved.
And now: IT DOESN"T HAVE ENOUGH NECK FOR THE TYPICAL GIULIANI/SOR PAP.
So it was MOST LIKELY used in some kind of repertoire IM VOLKSTON.
RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://polyhymnion.org/swv

> And what do you think they played on these instruments if not guitar music
> (and please don't say 'folk music')
> 
> Rgds
> 
> M
> 
> Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only in the same sense as other lutes rebuilt into guitars in that era. In
> other words: NOT.
> Look at the Jauch in Budapest. It has the same "adaptation", but it's no
> guitar.
> RT 
> __
> Roman M. Turovsky
> http://polyhymnion.org/swv
> 
>> 
>> 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 difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
>> BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
>> The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>>>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played
>>>> in
>>>> the 18thC? 
>>>> Martyn
>>> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
>>> RT
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>>>> In my opinion
>>>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>>>> lute,
>>>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>>>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>>>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>>>> 
>>>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>>>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>>>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>>>> century.
>>>> RT
>>>> -- 
>>>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>>>> To: Mathias R?
>>>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>>>> in
>>>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>>>> 
>>>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>>>> and
>>>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or
>>>>> 'gitarre'.
>>>>> I
>>>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. Interestingly, the cover has two figures playing
>>>>> Lauten
>>>>> (not Gitarren).
>>>>

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
And what do you think they played on these instruments if not guitar music (and 
please don't say 'folk music')
 
Rgds
 
M

Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Only in the same sense as other lutes rebuilt into guitars in that era. In
other words: NOT.
Look at the Jauch in Budapest. It has the same "adaptation", but it's no
guitar.
RT 
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://polyhymnion.org/swv

> 
> 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 difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
> BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
> The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>>> the 18thC? 
>>> Martyn
>> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>>> In my opinion 
>>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>>> lute,
>>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>>> 
>>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>>> century.
>>> RT
>>> -- 
>>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>>> To: Mathias R?
>>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>>> 
>>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>>> in
>>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>>> 
>>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>>> and
>>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>>> I
>>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>>>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Martyn
>>>> 
>>>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>>>> 
>>>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>>>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>>>> 
>>>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>>>> lute.
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>>>> 
>>>> yes, indeed.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Mathias
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>> 
>>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>> --
>> 
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

Thank you Roman,
 
in short - a guitar
 
M  
 

Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A lautenguitarre of sorts, REMARCABLY with original double-strung set-up.
The main visual difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
The instrument in question 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 this was made or converted
>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>> the 18thC? 
>> Martyn
> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
> RT
> 
> 
>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>> In my opinion 
>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>> lute,
>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>> 
>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>> century.
>> RT
>> -- 
>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>> To: Mathias R? 
>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>> 
>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>> in
>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>> 
>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>> and
>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>> I
>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> 
>>> Martyn
>>> 
>>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>>> 
>>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>>> 
>>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>>> lute.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>>> 
>>> yes, indeed.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mathias
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> 
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

Dear Marion,
you are certainly right in saying that many of us draw artificial
boundaries for ourselves that restrict our playing. You may string and
play any instrument the way and kind you wish to play and have fun. But
the issue I try to pursue is, rather, which way the instrument in
question was strung and played during its hey-day. There are two
approaches, at least. Martyn suggests definition by usage which is why
he says the instrument is a guitar (six courses = possible guitar
playing). My approach follows rather traditional lines in that I try to
observe constructional features that the instrument has in common with
other instruments of the time (six courses, shell-like body, etc =
mandora).
Cheers,
Mathias
> Unfortunately the luthier who made the instrument or owner who
> ordered the instrument is not here to clarify why it was ordered
> or what was played on it. The beauty of a six-course instrument
> (and also with instruments that have more strings) is that you
> can tune them so many different ways to play so many different
> kinds of music. One needs to be careful not to put too much
> tension on the bridge, but respecting that constraint the instrument
> in question could be used in many different ways. It is what
> you make it. I think we draw artificial boundaries for oursleves
> that restrict our playing. 
> 
> I already have enough lutes and guitars.
> If it were my instrument, I would tune it like a laud or a
> mandlino lombardo ottavo. Some baroque music is easier to
> play in this tuning. Try it, you'll like it.

> > In my opinion how it could be used is more important than what you call it.

> that would indeed be the case, if some of the names were synonymous.
> However, each name stands for a certain tuning, stringing, kind of
> playing, and repertoire.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

Martyn,

since usage of musical instruments has in many cases been uncertain,
musicologists tend to define musical instruments by their building
structure. As for kastenhals (box-like body + neck) vs schalenhals
(shell-like body + neck) lutes, that definition can be traced back to
Curt Sachs or Hans Riem, I think. As a musicologist, you will know
better than I.

Regarding treatment, I should be curious which evidence there is. Among
guitarists, there has been argument e. g. as for nails or not nails. I
don't remember any such debate among lutenists of old. I've mentioned
string material already. Playing literature of one instrument on another
instrument, doesn't mean they are the same. You can play many pages of
baroque guitar music on the baroque mandora because the latter has
octave strings from 4th to 6th course, but that doesn't make the mandora
a guitar.

Recently I was given a wandervogel lute that had been used until, say,
1965. When I shook it slightly, there was kind of a little rumble
inside, and the former owner explained that it had lain in dust. At
home, I turned it and shook it until all of the *dust* fell off. That
dust were some twenty or thirty knotted ends of broken gut strings.

> Yes, I'm very much aware of the importance of the Mandora/Colachon in the 
> development of the late 18thC guitar  - have you read my mid 1970s monographs 
> on precisely this subject in the FoMRHI Quarterly?

Have you read Pietro Prosser's doctoral thesis on precisely this topic
(he _has_ read your monograph)? In a shortened version, it is available
on Frederico Marincola's homepage, in LuteBot #5.

Cheers,

Mathias

> "Mathias Rösel"  wrote:
> Thank you for your critique, Martyn, but:
> 
> as far as I'm aware, guitars are defined as box-neck-lutes, i. e. with a
> neck and a box-like body (kastenhalslauten, in German), as opposed to
> shell-neck-lutes, i. e. with a neck and a shell-like body
> (schalenhalslauten) which are what most of us are used to calling
> lutes.
> Hybrids of guitars and other instruments in the 19th century were named
> according to their components, e.g. cello-guitar, lyre-guitare and so
> on.
> 
> Pietro Prosser has plausibly shown that at the end of 18th century the
> guitar and the mandora each took elements of the other. The guitar
> inherited its 6th course and its modern non-reentrant tuning from the
> mandora, whereas the mandora took over the guitar's single strings.
> 
> The rococo mandora perished, but its late heir, the wandervogel lute,
> has survived well into the 20th century. Wandervogel lutes are by no
> means guitars. The rediscovery of Early music by pioneers like Dagobert
> Bruger et al, who played the wandervogel lute, prompted others to state
> that wandervogel lutes are no proper lutes.
> 
> I should simply value that a defamation which is still maintained even
> by some luthiers, today (but that doesn't add to its truth). While it is
> true that wandervogel lutes considerably differ from renaissance lutes,
> they are lutes, nevertheless: lutes with a shell-like body and a neck.
> None of the contemporaries called them other than lutes.
> 
> Notwithstanding that, it is likewise true that modern guitars and
> wandervogel lutes strongly resembled each other in terms of stringing
> and tuning (btw steel strings were in use for the guitar, but lutes were
> always strung with gut, or nylon after WW II). That is why so many
> editions during the fading 19th and starting 20th centuries were made
> for the guitar or for the lute, alternatively.
> 
> So much for my unsubstantiated comment.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

A lautenguitarre of sorts, REMARCABLY with original double-strung set-up.
The main visual difference between gallichones and lautengitarren is the
BRIDGE POSITION, lute-like for the former, guitar-like for the latter.
The instrument in question 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree this is a possibility; as you know, I think the weight of evidence is
>> otherwise. But are you seriously suggesting that this was made or converted
>> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
>> the 18thC? 
>> Martyn
> No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
> RT
> 
> 
>> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>> In my opinion 
>> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>>> lute,
>>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
>> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
>> 
>> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
>> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
>> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
>> century.
>> RT
>> -- 
>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>>> To: Mathias R? 
>>> Cc: Lute Net 
>>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>>> 
>>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and
>>> in
>>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>>> 
>>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars
>>> and
>>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>>> I
>>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>>> Friedrich Vieweg
>>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> 
>>> Martyn
>>> 
>>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>>> 
>>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>>> 
>>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>>> lute.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>>> 
>>> yes, indeed.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mathias
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> 
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

 In that case - what do you think it was converted to?
 
M

Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree this is a possibility; as you know, I think the weight of evidence is
> otherwise. But are you seriously suggesting that this was made or converted
> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
> the 18thC? 
> Martyn
No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
RT


> Roman Turovsky wrote:
>> In my opinion 
> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
> 
> 
> 
>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>> lute,
>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
> 
> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
> century.
> RT
> -- 
> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>> To: Mathias R? 
>> Cc: Lute Net 
>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>> 
>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>> 
>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'. I
>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>> Friedrich Vieweg
>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Martyn
>> 
>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>> 
>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>> 
>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>> lute.
>> 
>> 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
>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>> 
>> yes, indeed.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mathias
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

Really? Then all guitarists that play lute music on their guitars with the
3rd string down to F# actually play lutes?
RT
__
Roman M. Turovsky
http://polyhymnion.org/swv

> You can call it what you like. How you tune it and what you play
> it are more important.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Lute Net 
>> In my opinion 
> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
> 
>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>> lute,
>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
> 
> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
> century.
> RT
> -- 
> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>> To: Mathias R? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: Lute Net 
>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>> 
>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>> 
>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars.  Even well into the last
>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.
>> I
>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of   'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)'   published by Chr
>> Friedrich Vieweg
>> /BerlinLichterfelds.  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 but perhaps it would be
>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Martyn
>> 
>> "Mathias R?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>> 
>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>> 
>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>> lute.
>> 
>> 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
>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>> 
>> yes, indeed.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mathias
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

> I agree this is a possibility; as you know, I think the weight of evidence  is
> otherwise.  But are you seriously suggesting that this was made or converted
> to its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in
> the 18thC?  
> Martyn
No. I'd say it was bastardized sometime into the 19th century.
RT


> Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In my opinion 
> WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.
> 
> 
> 
>> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
>> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
>> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
>> lute,
>> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
> FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
> is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.
> 
> This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
> suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
> Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
> century.
> RT
> -- 
> http://polyhymnion.org/torban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Martyn Hodgson
>> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
>> To: Mathias R? 
>> Cc: Lute Net 
>> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
>> 
>> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
>> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
>> 
>> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
>> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
>> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
>> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'. I
>> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
>> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
>> Friedrich Vieweg
>> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
>> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Martyn
>> 
>> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
>> 
>> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
>> this is, it is not a guitar.
>> 
>>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
>> lute.
>> 
>> 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
>>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
>> 
>> yes, indeed.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mathias
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>> 
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> --
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

You can call it what you like. How you tune it and what you play 
it are more important.

-Original Message-
From: Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 4:48 AM
To: "Dr. Marion Ceruti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
    Lute Net 
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

> In my opinion 
WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.

> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
> lute,
> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.

This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
century.
RT
-- 
http://polyhymnion.org/torban
 




> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
> To: Mathias R? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Lute Net 
> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
> 
> 
> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
> 
> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
> 
> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
> similar played music written for ordinary guitars.  Even well into the last
> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.  I
> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of   'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)'   published by Chr
> Friedrich Vieweg 
> /BerlinLichterfelds.  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 but perhaps it would be
> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martyn
> 
> "Mathias R?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
> 
> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
> this is, it is not a guitar.
> 
>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
> lute.
> 
> 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
>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
> 
> yes, indeed.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --
> 
> 

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

Mathias,
 
Thank you for your observations: your comments are now substantiated. 
 
Who defines these instruments as per your extract?   As has been said, it's 
usage which really defines. Hence my De Call example - (and of course many 
others of ths period as  you're aware) - they clearly treated these instruments 
as guitars ie playing guitar music whatever fanciful notion they had that they 
were imitating renaissance lutes.
 
Yes, I'm very much aware of the importance of the Mandora/Colachon in the 
development of the late 18thC guitar  - have you read my mid 1970s monographs 
on precisely this subject in the FoMRHI Quarterly?
 
rgds
 
Martyn
 


"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you for your critique, Martyn, but:

as far as I'm aware, guitars are defined as box-neck-lutes, i. e. with a
neck and a box-like body (kastenhalslauten, in German), as opposed to
shell-neck-lutes, i. e. with a neck and a shell-like body
(schalenhalslauten) which are what most of us are used to calling
lutes.
Hybrids of guitars and other instruments in the 19th century were named
according to their components, e.g. cello-guitar, lyre-guitare and so
on.

Pietro Prosser has plausibly shown that at the end of 18th century the
guitar and the mandora each took elements of the other. The guitar
inherited its 6th course and its modern non-reentrant tuning from the
mandora, whereas the mandora took over the guitar's single strings.

The rococo mandora perished, but its late heir, the wandervogel lute,
has survived well into the 20th century. Wandervogel lutes are by no
means guitars. The rediscovery of Early music by pioneers like Dagobert
Bruger et al, who played the wandervogel lute, prompted others to state
that wandervogel lutes are no proper lutes.

I should simply value that a defamation which is still maintained even
by some luthiers, today (but that doesn't add to its truth). While it is
true that wandervogel lutes considerably differ from renaissance lutes,
they are lutes, nevertheless: lutes with a shell-like body and a neck.
None of the contemporaries called them other than lutes.

Notwithstanding that, it is likewise true that modern guitars and
wandervogel lutes strongly resembled each other in terms of stringing
and tuning (btw steel strings were in use for the guitar, but lutes were
always strung with gut, or nylon after WW II). That is why so many
editions during the fading 19th and starting 20th centuries were made
for the guitar or for the lute, alternatively.

So much for my unsubstantiated comment. 
-- 
Regards,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

I agree this is a possibility; as you know, I think the weight of evidence  is 
otherwise.  But are you seriously suggesting that this was made or converted to 
its present state in the period when the Gallichon/Colachon was played in the 
18thC?  
 
rgds
 
Martyn
Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion 
WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.



> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
> lute,
> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.

This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
century.
RT
-- 
http://polyhymnion.org/torban





> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martyn Hodgson 
> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
> To: Mathias R? 
> Cc: Lute Net 
> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
> 
> 
> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
> 
> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
> 
> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
> similar played music written for ordinary guitars. Even well into the last
> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'. I
> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of 'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)' published by Chr
> Friedrich Vieweg 
> /BerlinLichterfelds. 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 but perhaps it would be
> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martyn
> 
> "Mathias R?" wrote:
>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
> 
> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
> this is, it is not a guitar.
> 
>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
> lute.
> 
> 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
>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
> 
> yes, indeed.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --
> 
> 



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
Precisely my point
 
regards,
 
Martyn


"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
that would indeed be the case, if some of the names were synonymous.
However, each name stands for a certain tuning, stringing, kind of
playing, and repertoire.
-- 
Regards

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

Thank you for your critique, Martyn, but:

as far as I'm aware, guitars are defined as box-neck-lutes, i. e. with a
neck and a box-like body (kastenhalslauten, in German), as opposed to
shell-neck-lutes, i. e. with a neck and a shell-like body
(schalenhalslauten) which are what most of us are used to calling
lutes.
Hybrids of guitars and other instruments in the 19th century were named
according to their components, e.g. cello-guitar, lyre-guitare and so
on.

Pietro Prosser has plausibly shown that at the end of 18th century the
guitar and the mandora each took elements of the other. The guitar
inherited its 6th course and its modern non-reentrant tuning from the
mandora, whereas the mandora took over the guitar's single strings.

The rococo mandora perished, but its late heir, the wandervogel lute,
has survived well into the 20th century. Wandervogel lutes are by no
means guitars. The rediscovery of Early music by pioneers like Dagobert
Bruger et al, who played the wandervogel lute, prompted others to state
that wandervogel lutes are no proper lutes.

I should simply value that a defamation which is still maintained even
by some luthiers, today (but that doesn't add to its truth). While it is
true that wandervogel lutes considerably differ from renaissance lutes,
they are lutes, nevertheless: lutes with a shell-like body and a neck.
None of the contemporaries called them other than lutes.

Notwithstanding that, it is likewise true that modern guitars and
wandervogel lutes strongly resembled each other in terms of stringing
and tuning (btw steel strings were in use for the guitar, but lutes were
always strung with gut, or nylon after WW II). That is why so many
editions during the fading 19th and starting 20th centuries were made
for the guitar or for the lute, alternatively.

 So much for my unsubstantiated comment.  
-- 
Regards,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Mathias Rösel]

> In my opinion how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
that would indeed be the case, if some of the names were synonymous.
However, each name stands for a certain tuning, stringing, kind of
playing, and repertoire.
-- 
Regards

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

> In my opinion 
WHich is a bit "leaky" as we say in the old country.



> how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
> Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
> a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
> lute,
> a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
FYI, Hoffmann was a very important figure in the history of lute, and there
is no reason to inflict on him any abuse by linguistic daftness.

This was a gallichone (100% certainty, look at the neck and pegbox), which
suffered bridge displacement which is sadly not atypical. Both Budapest
Jauch and Brunner baroque lutes suffered this at some point during the 19th
century.
RT
-- 
http://polyhymnion.org/torban
 




> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
> To: Mathias R? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Lute Net 
> Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon
> 
> 
> Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
> 
> - are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in
> other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar).
> 
> - defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for
> trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and
> similar played music written for ordinary guitars.  Even well into the last
> century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.  I
> have before me an original edition (c 1930) of   'Leonardo de Call/Notturno
> Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)'   published by Chr
> Friedrich Vieweg 
> /BerlinLichterfelds.  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 but perhaps it would be
> useful to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martyn
> 
> "Mathias R?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar
> 
> guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
> this is, it is not a guitar.
> 
>>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
> lute.
> 
> 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
>> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
> 
> yes, indeed.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> --
> 
> 

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Jon Murphy]

Hear, hear Dr. Marion,

>
In my opinion how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance
lute,
a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo.
>

I think I've been trying to say that for a while,  the "mix and match" of
shapes and string tuning is so complicated that we neglect the basic
question of the music played when we name the instrument.

Best, Jon




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Dr. Marion Ceruti]

In my opinion how it could be used is more important than what you call it.
Depending on how you tune a six-course instrument, it could function as
a guitar, requinto (actually a "requinto" lute in this case), renaissance lute,
a laud, or a mandolino lombardo ottavo. 

-Original Message-
From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 16, 2005 1:05 AM
To: Mathias Rösel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Lute Net 
Subject: Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

 
Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
 
- are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in 
other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar). 
 
- defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for 
trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and 
similar played music written for ordinary guitars.  Even well into the last 
century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.  I 
have before me an original edition (c 1930) of   'Leonardo de Call/Notturno 
Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)'   published by Chr 
Friedrich Vieweg  
/BerlinLichterfelds.  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 but perhaps it would be useful 
to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
 
regards,
 
Martyn

"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar 

guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
this is, it is not a guitar.

>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
lute.

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 
> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.

yes, indeed.

-- 
Regards,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
Thank you for your comments Mathias, but:
 
- are you not aware that guitars were made in lute shape in the 19thC (and in 
other shapes as well for that matter - eg lyre guitar). 
 
- defining a guitar as a 'shallow bodied' instrument is surely asking for 
trouble - probably better to relate to musical practice - ie lute-guitars and 
similar played music written for ordinary guitars.  Even well into the last 
century it was possible to buy sheet music asking for 'laute' or 'gitarre'.  I 
have before me an original edition (c 1930) of   'Leonardo de Call/Notturno 
Op89/fur Flote(Geige), Bratsche and Gitarre(Laute)'   published by Chr 
Friedrich Vieweg  
/BerlinLichterfelds.  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 but perhaps it would be useful 
to support it with evidence rather than unsubstantiated comment.
 
regards,
 
Martyn

"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar 

guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
this is, it is not a guitar.

>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
lute.

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 
> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.

yes, indeed.

-- 
Regards,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

["Mathias Rösel"]

>> My view is that it is most likely a guitar 

guitars have shallow bodies, by definition, or so I'm told. Whatsoever
this is, it is not a guitar.

>> (or rather late 19thC german lute/guitar) conversion direct from a
lute.

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 
> entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.

yes, indeed.
  
-- 
Regards,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

> My view is that it is most likely a guitar (or rather late 19thC german
> lute/guitar) conversion direct from a lute. There are numerous examples of
> 18thC Colachons/mandoras (see Gill et als) and leaving aside the obvious
> guitar conversion features (eg bridge, rose) it looks pretty atypical (eg very
> sloping shoulders).
I would have thought so, if not for the pegbox, which is rather elegant, and
entirely uncharacteristic of the Wandervogels.
RT  
RT




> 
> Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.
> RT
> 
> http://polyhymnion.org
> 
> 
>> From: "Hans Kockelmans"
> 
>> 
>> A strange lute by Joh Christian Hoffmann, 1733 for sale. What could it be? A
>> colascione?
>> http://www.music-treasures.com/ click on ANTIQUE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 1595 -
>> 1930 and then baroque lute.
>> H.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> $0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
> 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
> Signup at www.doteasy.com
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 



___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
My view is that it is most likely a guitar (or rather late 19thC german 
lute/guitar) conversion direct from a lute. There are numerous examples of 
18thC Colachons/mandoras (see Gill et als) and leaving aside the obvious guitar 
conversion features (eg bridge, rose) it looks pretty atypical (eg very sloping 
shoulders).
 
It cld be that the back (with label) is the only original feature; if the whole 
thing isn't a fake, - but was Hofmann ever faked as the earlier Italian makers 
were (by Francolini and others)? Was he famous enough to capture the fanciful 
imagination of 19th/20thC Museum curators?
 
Martyn


Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.
RT

http://polyhymnion.org


> From: "Hans Kockelmans" 

> 
> A strange lute by Joh Christian Hoffmann, 1733 for sale. What could it be? A
> colascione?
> http://www.music-treasures.com/ click on ANTIQUE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 1595 -
> 1930 and then baroque lute.
> H.
> 
> 



___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

["Mathias Rösel"]

> I don't like that bridge position.

nor do I. The position of the bridge and the curved shape of the pegbox
remind me of the so-called Wagner-Laute (Magnus Tieffenbrucker, 1610,
now preserved in Wagner-Museum, Triebschen / Luzern) which has probably
been rebuilt and has similar traits.

> >> Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.
> > 
> > The instrument has six courses, if I'm not mistaken, not five (so, it's
> > not what is generally accepted as guitar). According to Pohlmann's list
> > (2nd ed. 1982), mandoras from 1692 to mid-1700 range from 5 to 8
> > courses. This one well fits into that list.
-- 
Best,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

I don't like that bridge position.
RT
>> Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.
> 
> The instrument has six courses, if I'm not mistaken, not five (so, it's
> not what is generally accepted as guitar). According to Pohlmann's list
> (2nd ed. 1982), mandoras from 1692 to mid-1700 range from 5 to 8
> courses. This one well fits into that list.
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Mathias
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

["Mathias Rösel"]

 "Roman Turovsky"  schrieb:
> Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.

The instrument has six courses, if I'm not mistaken, not five (so, it's
not what is generally accepted as guitar). According to Pohlmann's list
(2nd ed. 1982), mandoras from 1692 to mid-1700 range from 5 to 8
courses. This one well fits into that list. 
-- 
Best wishes,

Mathias

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Hoffmann Mandora/Gallichon

[Roman Turovsky]

Seems to be A MANDORA, but the top is not original, was made into a guitar.
RT

http://polyhymnion.org


> From: "Hans Kockelmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> A strange lute by Joh Christian Hoffmann, 1733 for sale. What could it be? A
> colascione?
> http://www.music-treasures.com/ click on ANTIQUE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 1595 -
> 1930 and then baroque lute.
> H.
> 
> 



___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html